Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Owlett Hall

Goodpublished 20 April 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing had improved, safeguarding systems were in place and medicines were managed safely.
Effective?
Good
The report does not give a rating for Effective.
Caring?
Good
People's choices were recorded and staff knew their needs. Inspectors saw care being provided with dignity, privacy and respect.
Responsive?
Good
Care was reviewed regularly and reflected people's preferences and communication needs. People had a varied choice of activities and relatives knew how to raise concerns.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Quality checks and management oversight had improved, but the CQC said more work was needed to make these improvements consistent and lasting.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, April 2023

Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and responsive care, but leadership was still Requires Improvement.

Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 23 March 2023. They spoke with 9 people, 8 relatives and 8 staff. They also reviewed care records, recruitment files and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found that risks were managed, medicines were given safely, staff treated people with kindness and dignity, and people had personalised care and a choice of activities.

Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Management systems had improved and the home was no longer breaching regulations, but the CQC wanted to see the improvements continue consistently over time.

The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The report says the previous breaches had been addressed.

What inspectors praised
  • Risks managed

    Risk assessments were in place and reviewed when people's needs changed. Accident and incident records were monitored to help prevent things happening again.

    “Risks to people had been appropriately managed and were reviewed regularly when the level of risk changed.” from the report
  • Enough staff

    The home had improved its staffing levels, and inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks included DBS checks and references.

    “There was now enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People and relatives described staff as kind and responsive. Inspectors saw staff supporting people in a dignified way.

    “We observed staff providing care in a dignified way.” from the report
  • Activities and personal choice

    Relatives were positive about the activities on offer. People could choose where to spend their time, and care records reflected their preferences.

    “Relatives were positive about the activities people were now doing at the service.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Leadership needs to stay consistent

    needs fixing

    Although management systems had improved and the previous governance breach had been addressed, the CQC still rated well-led Requires Improvement. Inspectors wanted to see the changes embedded and sustained over time.

    “However, additional work was required to ensure the improvements were embedded and sustained.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What quality checks are now carried out regularly, and who reviews the results?
  2. 02How will you show that the recent improvements in management and governance are being sustained?
  3. 03What staffing levels are in place on each unit, including at night and during busy periods?
  4. 04How are relatives involved in reviewing and changing their family member's care plan?
  5. 05How can families raise concerns, and how are complaints reviewed for common themes?

This was a focused follow-up inspection rather than the last comprehensive inspection; ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over, and no Effective rating is shown in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2022

Rated Requires Improvement, with unsafe care risks and inadequate leadership, although inspectors found effective support in some areas.

Inspectors visited without notice on 29 September and 11 October 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.

They found important safety concerns. Call bells were not always within reach, some environmental risks had not been dealt with, risks were not always monitored properly, and some records were incomplete. Medicines management had improved overall, but thickening products were not always stored securely and this was corrected during the inspection.

People and relatives gave mixed views about staff responsiveness, dignity, activities and food. The home was rated Good for Effective, but Requires Improvement for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Inadequate because checks and management systems had not identified or fixed widespread problems.

What inspectors praised
  • Staff training and support

    Staff had relevant training, supervision and competency checks. Staff said they felt supported by the management team.

    “People were supported by staff who received relevant training, supervision and had periodic assessment of their competencies in key areas of care.” from the report
  • Nutrition and hydration

    People's nutritional and hydration needs were assessed and monitored. The home worked with healthcare professionals when people needed help to gain weight.

    “People's nutritional and hydration needs were well managed.” from the report
  • Healthcare support

    The home kept in contact with relevant healthcare professionals and recorded appointments and advice. Staff knew how to raise concerns about people's health needs.

    “The provider kept in contact with relevant healthcare professionals involved in people's care.” from the report
  • Complaints process

    The home had a complaints process, and inspectors found the way complaints were handled to be appropriate.

    “The provider had policies and procedures in place to manage complaints. We reviewed how this was being managed and found it to be appropriate.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Risks were not consistently managed

    serious

    Call bells were not always within reach. Inspectors also found accessible cleaning products and razors, incorrect mattress settings, gaps in checks and incomplete fire evacuation information.

    “Systems in place did not always ensure people received safe care. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
  • Weak quality oversight

    serious

    The home's audits and checks had not found or fixed important problems. Similar issues had been identified at earlier inspections and the home remained in breach.

    “Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate effective oversight and management of the service.” from the report
  • Privacy and dignity

    needs fixing

    Staff did not always knock before entering bedrooms. Relatives also raised concerns about lost belongings and support with personal care.

    “We observed staff did not always knock on people's doors before entering their bedrooms.” from the report
  • Limited activities

    needs fixing

    Activities were not offered regularly, particularly to people who were nursed in bed. The report says this had already been identified as needing improvement.

    “People were not regularly offered regular opportunities to be involved in activities, in particular people who were nursed in bed.” from the report
  • Staff responsiveness and deployment

    needs fixing

    Some people and relatives said staff were not always available and people were left waiting. The provider was asked to review how staff were deployed.

    “One person said, "They make you wait and wait for everything as they never seem to be around, and I sit watching to grab their attention".” from the report
  • Some medicines and thickening products not secure

    serious

    Most medicines management had improved, but prescribed thickening products were not stored securely when inspectors first looked. The home acted immediately.

    “Prescribed supplements used to thicken the drinks for people at risk of choking were not stored securely.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make sure every person can reach their call bell at all times?
  2. 02How are you now checking air flow mattresses, moving and handling equipment, hourly checks and personal emergency evacuation plans?
  3. 03What changes have been made to make activities regular, including for people who are nursed in bed or living with dementia?
  4. 04How do you make sure staff knock before entering bedrooms and protect people's belongings and dignity?
  5. 05What action has followed the Warning Notice, and how can families see evidence that the quality checks are now finding and fixing problems?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; it was prompted partly by an incident involving a death, but the inspection did not examine the circumstances of that incident. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 November 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Owlett Hall

11 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Owlett Hall →

  2. November 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Owlett Hall →

  3. January 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. June 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. February 2020Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. June 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. January 2019Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. July 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. April 2017Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. September 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. August 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. May 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds

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 £1,250 a week. 89 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.”
Claire A., about Carla M.
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
Jasmine A., about Joseph M.
See live-in carers near LeedsProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.