CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Huws
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found arrangements for visitors, PPE, testing, safe admissions, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 24 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found that the home followed guidance for visitors, PPE, testing, shielding, social distancing and safe admissions. Staff supported people with visits and contact with family by phone and video calls.
The home was clean and used signs to highlight infection risks. Staff used their knowledge of people to support isolation and activities, helping to maintain a calm atmosphere.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a full overall quality rating or a new rating for all five questions.
Support during isolation
Staff used their knowledge of residents to support social distancing and isolation. They provided activities people enjoyed and helped maintain a calm atmosphere.
“We observed staff communicating and engaging with people to maintain a calm and supportive atmosphere.” from the report
Testing and admissions
People were admitted after a negative test and isolated for 14 days. Their support plans were updated during isolation.
“People were only admitted following a negative test result and isolated in their room for 14 days following admission.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed social distancing rules, accessed testing and kept its infection control policy up to date.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not say that this led to a breach or enforcement action.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control changes have been made since the inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently given PPE and guidance before entering the home?
- 03How are testing and isolation managed when someone is admitted?
- 04How are visits and contact with family currently supported?
- 05How is cleaning covered when the domestic worker is away?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only, so the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Huws was rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safety improvements were still needed.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 10 February 2020. They observed care, spoke with managers and staff, reviewed records, and contacted relatives and a health professional. They could not speak directly with people because of their communication needs.
The home provided kind and personalised care. People were supported with their health, food, communication, activities and relationships. Relatives and staff gave very positive feedback about the home and its management.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. Fire doors recommended by the fire and rescue service were still outstanding. Inspectors also found concerns about infection control records, unlocked storage, staff handovers and recruitment checks. The other four areas were rated Good.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Effective and well-led also improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Safe fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. Relatives were confident that staff understood their family members well.
“Our observations of staff engaging with people were very positive. Staff were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and routines. Staff knew how to communicate with people who did not use speech.
“Staff had developed an in-depth knowledge of people's different communication.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People's complex health needs and dietary requirements were understood and monitored. Staff worked with health professionals to support positive health outcomes.
“People had complex health conditions and staff provided effective care.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in outings, holidays, meals out and other activities linked to their interests.
“People received opportunities to access their local community and to participate in activities and experiences they enjoyed.” from the report
Improving leadership
The manager had made improvements and staff and relatives spoke positively about the leadership. The provider also had quality checks and oversight.
“The registered manager was experienced, a good leader and had drive and motivation to continually drive forward further improvements.” from the report
Fire safety work outstanding
seriousFire doors recommended by the fire and rescue service in 2019 had not yet been fitted. Inspectors said this meant there was an increased risk that people could be harmed.
“We were concerned the fire and rescue service had completed an inspection in May 2019 and had made recommendations for new fire doors which had not been completed.” from the report
Infection control records
needs fixingLaundry rooms were unlocked and untidy, and cleaning schedules were incomplete. This gave inspectors limited assurance that infection risks were being properly controlled.
“Whilst the environment looked clean and hygienic, we found the cleaning schedules were not fully completed to confirm cleaning had been completed.” from the report
Weak staff handovers
needs fixingHandover records did not contain enough information. Inspectors were concerned that staff did not always know about incidents and the lessons to learn from them.
“We found staff handover documentation lacked information. We were concerned staff awareness of incidents and learning was lacking.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingInitial criminal record checks were completed, but further checks were not completed or discussed with staff after they started. The manager agreed to raise this with senior managers.
“We noted additional criminal record checks were not completed or discussed with staff.” from the report
DoLS care plans
needs fixingSome people had restrictions under DoLS, while others were waiting for assessments. The home did not have DoLS care plans explaining the restrictions and related care needs.
“We noted there were no DoLS care plans to inform staff of people's care needs in relation to restrictions in place.” from the report
- 01Have all the new fire doors recommended in 2019 now been fitted, and how was this checked?
- 02How do you now make sure cleaning schedules are completed and laundry rooms and cleaning products are kept safely?
- 03What new handover system is in place so staff know about incidents and lessons learned?
- 04How do you check criminal records after staff have started work?
- 05Which people have DoLS restrictions, and are their care plans now in place?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Huws
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.