CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at North Lincolnshire Council Home First Residential
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm and abuse, risks were assessed, staffing levels were appropriate and the environment was clean. However, some 'when required' medicine protocols were missing and some medicine records were not completed in line with the provider's policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills and training to meet people's needs. People were supported with rehabilitation goals, food and health care, and staff sought consent.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. They promoted independence, protected privacy and dignity, and included people in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and updated when people's needs changed. People were offered activities, support with communication and appropriate end of life care, and complaints were handled according to policy.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager promoted an open and inclusive culture, but audits were inconsistent and did not always identify shortfalls or confirm when problems had been resolved. Medicines policies were not always followed.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and effective rehabilitation care, but the home’s leadership and medicines records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on the first day and an announced inspection on the second day, carried out on 27 and 28 September 2018. The inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staffing information and quality checks.
The home provides short-term rehabilitation and re-ablement for up to 30 people, helping people regain skills after hospital treatment and return home. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by skilled staff, treated kindly and given care that responded to their needs.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, which means the home was not consistently well managed, although inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke very positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff showing warmth, explaining what they were doing and supporting people respectfully.
“Staff are lovely, cheerful, helpful and kind. Nothing is too much trouble for them.” from the report
Rehabilitation and independence
People were helped to set goals, practise skills and become more independent. Care was designed around helping people return home.
“The service aims to facilitate timely discharges from hospital and supports people to return home.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and abilities. Staff worked with rehabilitation professionals and updated plans when needs changed.
“Care plans were person-centred and documented what people were independent with and the support they required from staff.” from the report
Clean and suitable environment
Inspectors found the home clean, tidy and comfortable, with equipment and the environment appropriately maintained.
“We saw the service was clean, tidy and smelled pleasant.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome handwritten medicine records had only one signature when the policy required two. This created a risk that errors would not be identified and medicines might not be given as prescribed.
“This meant any errors could not be identified and there was a risk that people's medicines may not be administered as prescribed.” from the report
Quality checks were not reliable enough
needs fixingAudits did not always identify problems, record who was responsible or show when issues had been resolved. Inspectors recommended reviewing the audit process.
“Audits were completed; however, they were inconsistent and did not always identify shortfalls in quality or confirm when problems had been resolved.” from the report
- 01How are medicine administration records now checked to make sure the required signatures are present?
- 02How do you make sure 'when required' medicine protocols are in place for every person who needs them?
- 03Who is responsible for resolving problems found in audits, and how is completion recorded?
- 04What changes have been made since the well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement?
- 05How will you measure whether rehabilitation goals are being met and whether a person is ready to return home?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, using records, observations and feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 North Lincolnshire Council Home First Residential
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at North Lincolnshire Council Home First Residential →
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 March 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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 £1,300 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.