CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ings House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were generally administered safely and previous medicines problems had been improved. However, the medicines trolley area reached 25 degrees Celsius, some risk assessments were missing, one transfer was unsafe, and personal emergency evacuation plans were initially absent.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and their competence was checked. People received support with nutrition and health needs, but the report recommended using decision-specific mental capacity assessments for individual aspects of care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw attentive and patient staff who respected privacy, dignity and personal choices. Care plans reflected people's preferences and staff knew people well.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was assessed and reviewed, and relatives were involved in reviews. Inspectors found limited activities for some people in their rooms, incomplete detail in some moving and handling plans, and future end of life wishes were not routinely recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was visible and approachable, and audits, meetings, surveys and action plans were used to monitor the service. Staff said they would benefit from more regular team meetings.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found safety needed improvement, including medicines storage and some care risk records.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 11 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also reviewed care and staff records, medicines, the building and the home's management systems.
The overall rating stayed Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, although the report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection and there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, good training, person-centred care plans and effective quality checks. They also found some gaps, including incomplete risk assessments, unclear recording of some decisions and future wishes, and a medicines storage temperature that needed attention.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being patient, attentive and respectful. People were offered choices about food, clothing, routines and where they sat.
“During our inspection there was a calm atmosphere throughout the home and we observed staff being very attentive to, and patient with people.” from the report
Medicines improvements
The home had improved its medicines systems since the previous inspection. Staff had training and competency checks, and controlled medicines matched the records checked.
“At this inspection we found sufficient improvements had been made which meant the registered provider was meeting this regulation.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training, supervision and regular checks of their competence. The home also worked with health professionals to meet people's needs.
“We found staff were well-trained and had their competencies in all aspects of care checked regularly.” from the report
Person-centred records
Care plans included people's preferences and daily routines. Relatives were involved in annual reviews and some recent care plan reviews.
“Care plans were concise and person-centred as they reflected people's personal preferences in their daily routines.” from the report
Visible management
The manager worked alongside staff and was described as approachable. The home used regular audits, walk-rounds, meetings and action plans to monitor quality.
“Regular quality assurance checks and audits took place.” from the report
Medicines storage temperature
needs fixingThe medicines trolley area was 25 degrees Celsius on inspection. The manager was reviewing storage arrangements because some medicines can be affected above this temperature.
“The temperature on the day of our inspection was 25 degrees Celsius.” from the report
Missing risk assessment
seriousOne person had a known choking risk but there was no choking risk assessment. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“We raised this with the registered manager who told us they did not have choking risk assessments in place.” from the report
Incomplete safety planning
needs fixingPersonal emergency evacuation plans were not in place at the start of the inspection. They were completed the following day.
“We further identified people did not have personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome decisions about individual care did not have a specific capacity assessment and best interest decision recorded. Inspectors made a recommendation to improve this.
“However, there was no mental capacity assessment and best interest decision to support them wearing these items.” from the report
End of life wishes
needs fixingFuture end of life wishes were discussed but were not routinely recorded in care plans. The manager said these discussions and any choice not to discuss them would be recorded.
“However, we found future wishes were not routinely recorded.” from the report
Limited activities
minorPeople said there were limited activities available in their rooms. The home was recruiting another activities co-ordinator to provide activities every day.
“People told us there were limited activities for them to do in their rooms.” from the report
- 01How are medicines stored now, and how do you monitor temperatures in the medicines storage area?
- 02How do you make sure every person's choking, moving and handling, and evacuation risks have an up-to-date assessment?
- 03How are decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions recorded?
- 04How do you record each person's end of life wishes, including a decision not to discuss them?
- 05What activities are now available for people who prefer to stay in their rooms?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the overall rating unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 2018 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 Ings House Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 November 2012.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
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 £1,260 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.