CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ingham Old Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks had been identified, reviewed and managed, medicines were administered safely and infection control was effective. Night staffing numbers had not increased, although the risk had been assessed and emergency plans were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's physical, emotional and social needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained, dietary needs were met and healthcare professionals were involved when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not covered by this focused inspection, so no new rating was given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personal, accurate and up to date. People were supported with communication, relationships, activities and complaints, although some activities were limited by COVID-19.
- Well-led?
- Good
- A new registered manager had introduced regular audits and action plans. Inspectors found an open culture, improved communication and better oversight, although some changes still needed to become fully established.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and clear improvements after earlier concerns about medicines, risk checks and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 November 2021. One inspector reviewed care plans, medicines, staff training and recruitment records, audits and infection control. They also spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and observed care, lunch and the home.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found person-centred care, kind and trained staff, safe medicines management, good infection control, suitable food and better systems for checking quality.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with breaches linked to medicines, risk assessment and governance. Inspectors found these legal requirements were now met. They said some improvements still needed further embedding. They also noted that records should better show that conditions on one legal authorisation had been followed.
Safer medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed, with suitable records, staff training and regular checks of staff competence. The earlier warning notice was met.
“The inspection findings demonstrated the provider was now compliant with medicines management and that the requirements of the warning notice had been met.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans described people's individual needs and preferences. People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and responsive.
“People told us their needs were met in a person-centred and timely manner by staff who were well-trained, kind, compassionate and caring.” from the report
Improved leadership
The new manager had introduced regular audits and action plans. Inspectors found better oversight and a willingness to keep improving.
“A new registered manager had been appointed in May 2021 and people told us they felt they had been the vehicle for positive change.” from the report
Good infection control
The home was visibly clean and inspectors were assured that infection risks, including COVID-19, were being managed.
“Good infection prevention and control measures were in place and COVID-19 had been well-managed, considered and mitigated.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered food they enjoyed in suitable amounts and textures. Health needs, including diabetes and weight concerns, were followed up.
“Our observations confirmed that people received food of their choice, in the quantities they preferred and texture they required.” from the report
Records of legal conditions
needs fixingFor one person, inspectors saw that conditions attached to a legal authorisation were followed in practice, but the home did not keep enough records to prove this.
“However, the service needed to keep records to demonstrate this.” from the report
Night staffing
minorThe number of staff working at night had not increased since the earlier inspection. The home had assessed the risk and made emergency plans, but families should ask how these plans work in practice.
“Whilst this number had not increased, the risk had been assessed and plans put in place in the event of an emergency.” from the report
Building access
minorThe period building had gradients and steps that meant some people could not move around independently. Staff assisted people when needed.
“Whilst the period building did not fully allow for some people to move around the home independently due to floor gradients and steps, we saw that staff assisted people to move around the service as required.” from the report
- 01How do you now check medicines records and staff competence, following the previous warning notice?
- 02What records do you keep to show that conditions attached to legal authorisations have been followed?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty at night, and what happens if there is an emergency or a staff shortage?
- 04How are the manager's audits and action plans reviewed to make sure improvements remain in place?
- 05How will my relative be supported to move safely around the building if they find steps or floor gradients difficult?
This was an unannounced focused inspection covering Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not assessed and ratings for any questions not looked at were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 November 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, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, with some further development signposted.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 August 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than the full range of care quality questions.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, testing, hygiene, premises and possible outbreaks. Isolation arrangements had worked when one person tested positive, so the virus did not spread within the home.
The home had increased cleaning and staffing, arranged controlled family visits and sent families monthly emails with photos. The overall service and Safe rating were both recorded as inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Family contact
The manager sent families regular updates and photos of their relatives to help them stay reassured.
“The manager has sent monthly emails to families with photos of their relative to help reassure and give updates” from the report
Managed visiting
Family visits were arranged by appointment, with temperature checks, handwashing and protective equipment. Extra measures supported an indoor visit where there was a specific need.
“A gazebo had been erected in the garden to enable visiting of family members.” from the report
Cleanliness
Cleaning staff had been increased, and inspectors found the cleaning schedules and checklists robust.
“Cleaning staff had been increased to ensure that enhanced levels of cleanliness were maintained with cleaning schedules and checklists being robust” from the report
Outbreak response
The isolation arrangements used after a positive COVID-19 test worked and prevented the virus spreading within the home.
“Isolation procedures put in place when a person living in the home tested positive for COVID-19 had worked, so the virus did not spread within the home.” from the report
Further development
minorInspectors signposted the home to resources to develop its approach. The report does not explain which parts needed development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to your infection prevention and control approach since the August 2020 inspection?
- 02How do you currently arrange visits, including temperature checks, handwashing and protective equipment?
- 03How do you manage admissions and testing for people using the service and staff?
- 04What are your current procedures if someone living in the home tests positive for an infection?
- 05What resources or improvements did inspectors advise you to use to develop your approach?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the full range of care quality questions and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 September 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 Ingham Old Hall Care Home
7 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- June 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.