CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ingham House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were found to be safe, although some care records had minor inconsistencies and equipment had been stored in a fire exit before being moved.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found leadership changes, no registered manager in post, and weaknesses in complaints information and some record keeping. They also found that the new manager and staff team were making improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care, but the well-led rating had fallen to Requires improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 14 and 17 March 2022. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment files, training, staffing and management records.
The Safe key question was rated Good. People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, medicines were given safely, staffing levels were suitable, and infection control arrangements were in place. A fire exit was being used to store equipment and charge hoists, but this was cleared immediately.
The detailed findings rated Well-led as Requires improvement, although the front-page ratings section says Good. Inspectors found recent leadership changes, no registered manager in post, unclear arrangements for raising complaints, and some care records that did not fully link incidents to risk assessments. They also found evidence of improvement under the new manager, including reduced falls after staffing levels increased.
The overall service rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in January 2019. The inspection covered Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. The other three key questions were not inspected in this report.
Safeguarding
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and understood their safeguarding responsibilities.
“Staff were aware of the signs of abuse and how to report safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff administering them had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with an appropriate mix of skills. Increased staffing was linked with fewer accidents.
“This had improved peoples' outcomes and reduced accidents.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including COVID-19.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Improving leadership
Staff said leadership and teamwork had improved, and the management team was using audits and incidents to improve care.
“There had been improvements made, to areas identified from audits , such as a reduction in falls from increasing staffing levels.” from the report
Leadership arrangements
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. The manager was applying to add this home to their existing CQC registration.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Complaints information
needs fixingAlthough a complaints procedure existed, people living at the home did not have a clear system or signs showing how to complain. The home acted on this immediately.
“There was no clear system or signage to enable people who lived at the service to raise a complaint.” from the report
Care records after incidents
needs fixingSome falls and incidents were not fully carried through into risk assessments and care plans. Inspectors said this had not affected safe outcomes at that time because staff knew people's needs.
“However, we found that not all had pulled through to the risk assessment and care plan.” from the report
Fire exit storage
needs fixingEquipment was stored and electrical hoists were charged in a stairwell that was also a main fire exit. It was cleared immediately and inspectors said it was not impeding the exit or putting people at risk.
“Staff were storing equipment and charging electrical hoists in a stairwell which was also a main fire exit.” from the report
- 01Is there now a registered manager in post, and what arrangements are in place until registration is complete?
- 02How can residents and relatives make a complaint, and where is this information displayed?
- 03How do you make sure falls and other incidents are added promptly to risk assessments and care plans?
- 04Where are electrical hoists and other equipment now stored and charged?
- 05What changes have been made since the inspection to maintain the reduction in falls?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 2022 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 2019
Ingham House is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some audits needing more checking.
Inspectors visited without warning on 27 November 2018. They also spoke with health and social care professionals on 28 November. They met people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records, complaints, accidents, audits and the building.
The evidence showed that people felt safe and staff knew their needs. Care plans included individual risks and preferences. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and staff had the required training and checks.
People described staff as kind, respectful and patient. People were offered choices about food, activities and their care. The home worked with health professionals and had systems for complaints, meetings and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection. The report did note that some audits needed more evaluation to check whether improvements had worked.
Safe care planning
The home assessed individual risks and gave staff clear guidance about how to reduce them. It also had emergency evacuation plans for each person.
“Individual risk assessments had been implemented, reviewed and updated to provide sufficient guidance and support for staff to provide safe care.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke warmly about staff. Inspectors saw friendly interactions and found that privacy, dignity and choice were respected.
“People told us care staff were "kind" and "Patient and compassionate" and "They come in often to see if everything is alright-they listen to me and are very understanding and patient.” from the report
Good food and choice
People were offered nutritious meals, choices and support with eating and drinking. The home adapted food for individual health needs.
“People told us their favourite foods were always available, "They know what I like and don't like and there is always a choice, if I don't like the choices they cook something else.” from the report
Activities matched to interests
The home provided different activities, including one-to-one sessions, exercises, quizzes and trips into the local community. Inspectors saw people enjoying activities.
“During our inspection we saw a number of activities taking place and enjoyed by people.” from the report
Audit follow-up
minorThe home had quality audits and acted on identified issues. However, inspectors said some audits needed better checks to show whether the actions taken had actually improved things.
“We discussed with the registered manager that there were areas of audits that would benefit from further evaluation as to whether actions taken to address an identified issue were beneficial and had worked.” from the report
- 01Which audit actions were identified as needing more evaluation, and how have you checked that they worked?
- 02How often are my relative's care plan and risk assessments reviewed, and how are changes communicated to staff?
- 03How do you make sure agency staff have the skills needed for the people living here?
- 04How are residents and families involved in decisions about menus, activities and care?
- 05How do you monitor accidents, incidents and complaints to prevent problems happening again?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with a second day used to speak with visiting health and social care professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 2019 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 Ingham House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 December 2010.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.