CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hyne Town House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but important risks, care planning and management oversight were not reliable.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 6 and 30 March 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, risk records, recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good, improving from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Inspectors found people were generally treated kindly, had enough food and drink, could access healthcare, and received medicines safely. However, risk assessments and care plans lacked important detail. Some people were bored and were not always supported to follow their interests.
The home remained in breach of four regulations. CQC said improvements made previously had not been sustained. There was no registered manager at the time, and CQC planned to monitor the provider's progress.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors also saw caring interactions and found that people were involved in decisions about their care.
“During the inspection we observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people, and it was clear that staff knew people and their needs well.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Records showed medicines were given as prescribed. Storage, disposal, staff training and checks were all described as suitable.
“Medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People said they enjoyed the food and had enough to eat. Staff arranged support from health professionals when people's needs changed.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink throughout the day to meet their nutritional and health needs, individual choices and preferences.” from the report
Staff recruitment and training
The home used references and DBS checks when recruiting. Staff received training and new staff shadowed experienced workers.
“People were protected by safe recruitment processes.” from the report
Clean and hygienic environment
Inspectors found good infection prevention arrangements and said the environment was clean and hygienic.
“People were protected by good infection control processes and lived in an environment that was clean and hygienic.” from the report
Risk records and fire safety
seriousFire and premises checks were not always completed within the required period. Risk records did not always explain how staff should respond to seizures, choking, falls or skin damage.
“People were not always protected from risks associated with their environment as the provider could not be assured that routine fire safety checks were regularly taking place.” from the report
Restrictions and consent
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions were missing for some restrictions, including bedrails and a sensor.
“Mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions were not always in place where people had restrictions placed on them.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
needs fixingSome care plans lacked enough detail to guide staff. People told inspectors they felt bored and were not always helped to follow their interests.
“People continued to tell us they felt bored, and they were not always supported to follow their interests and take part in activities that were personalised to them and what they enjoyed doing.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits did not reliably find or address problems. Earlier improvements had not been maintained, leaving the provider unable to show consistent improvement.
“Audits had not been effective in identifying and addressing where improvements needed to be made.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. Two senior managers were supporting the home while recruitment was taking place.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure fire safety checks are completed on time and all staff can open the fire doors safely?
- 02How are risk assessments now being updated for seizures, choking, falls and skin damage, and how do staff know what action to take?
- 03How do you record mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions for bedrails, sensors and any other restrictions?
- 04What activities are now available for people who feel bored or want to follow particular interests?
- 05Who is currently responsible for management oversight, and how are audits showing that improvements are being sustained?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection of the service's five key questions, including infection prevention and control, after earlier concerns and required improvements. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 2023 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, January 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safer care, but management arrangements were not yet fully established.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 December 2020. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led, reviewed records, observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and contacted more relatives afterwards.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found improvements in risk assessments, staffing, medicines, equipment checks and infection control. People appeared comfortable with staff, and relatives said they felt the home was safe.
Well-led remained Requires Improvement. Two new managers had made changes, but they had not been in post long enough to show that the new systems were fully established. The home did not have a manager registered with the CQC.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. This was partly because ratings for areas not inspected were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Improved safety
Risks were assessed and reviewed more clearly. Staff had guidance about falls, hoisting, repositioning and supporting people who became distressed.
“Risks had been appropriately identified, assessed, monitored and reviewed.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff also had time to talk with people and support their social and emotional needs.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Safer medicines
Medicine storage temperatures were recorded and checked regularly. Staff received training and competency checks, and medicines audits were carried out.
“We found regular monitoring of temperature documented and audited.” from the report
Positive relationships
People appeared relaxed with staff and were comfortable asking for help. Relatives and staff also described the management team as approachable.
“People were relaxed and comfortable with staff and had no hesitation in asking for help from them.” from the report
Management not fully established
needs fixingThe new management arrangements had not been in place long enough for inspectors to confirm that they were effective. The home also had no manager registered with the CQC.
“However, it had not been sufficient time since the last inspection to embed the current management arrangements to establish that the systems were effective.” from the report
- 01Are the two current managers now registered with the CQC, and who has overall responsibility for the home?
- 02What evidence can you show that the new management and audit systems have remained effective since the inspection?
- 03What were the ratings for the key questions that were not checked during this focused inspection?
- 04How are pressure-relieving mattresses checked to make sure they are set correctly for each person?
- 05How will families be kept informed about changes in care needs or incidents?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; ratings for the other key questions were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection, and the self-contained units were not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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.
Every inspection of Hyne Town House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 2015.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.