CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Paxton Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including through PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and arrangements for visitors.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed as a separate rated area in this targeted inspection, although inspectors found audits and governance supported infection control.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Paxton Hall Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 29 January 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus pandemic, rather than carrying out a full assessment of the home.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, personal protective equipment, social distancing, testing, cleaning and managing possible infections. They were assured that people were being protected from catching and spreading infections.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report therefore does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas CQC normally considers.
Good use of PPE
Staff were observed using protective equipment correctly, while following social distancing and infection control practices.
“We observed staff wearing PPE correctly, social distancing and good standards of infection prevention and control.” from the report
Testing and outbreak response
The home had testing arrangements and acted quickly when staff or residents tested positive or had been exposed to someone who had.
“Swift and effective action was taken if staff or people tested positive or if they had been in contact with a person who had tested positive.” from the report
Clean environment
Audits and governance helped keep the premises clean, free from smells and without clutter.
“Audits and governance were effective in ensuring the premises were clean, odour and clutter free.” from the report
Family contact
Although dedicated visiting facilities were paused during the visit, the home had other arrangements for people who were unwell or receiving end-of-life care, including virtual contact.
“Additional measures had been implemented for people including technology for virtual meetings with family members.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current arrangements for visiting, especially if a resident is unwell or receiving end-of-life care?
- 02How are residents and staff currently tested for infections, and what happens after a positive result or close contact?
- 03How are personal protective equipment, hand hygiene and social distancing managed in the home now?
- 04How often are infection prevention policies and audit findings reviewed, and can families see the latest results?
- 05What arrangements are available for residents to keep in contact with relatives if in-person visits are restricted?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements needed for dementia support and activities.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 08 January 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, visitors, staff and managers, and reviewed care, medicines and management records. Feedback was also obtained from a GP after the visit.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff knew them well, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised, health needs were followed up, and families were involved. Inspectors noted that people living with dementia were not always reminded or shown what they had chosen to eat, and that activities for people with dementia were due to be reviewed.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with patience, kindness and understanding. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and choice.
“People were supported by staff who treated them with patience, kindness and understanding.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Risk assessments guided staff, equipment was maintained, and medicines records and storage were checked. Staff also had regular medicines training and competency checks.
“Staff kept up to date records of all medicines ordered, given and disposed of.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and needs. People and relatives were involved in care planning, and progress notes helped staff keep track of care given.
“Staff know each person by name and also knew their likes and dislikes.” from the report
Good health support
Staff recognised when people were unwell and made timely referrals. Inspectors found good communication with health professionals.
“Health professionals' advice is always followed. We have a very good working relationship (with the staff).” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback. Audits and reviews were used to identify and make improvements.
“The registered manager and staff team gave examples of learning when something had gone wrong or had been a near miss.” from the report
Mealtime support for people with dementia
needs fixingInspectors found that people living with dementia who might forget their meal choice were not always reminded or shown what they had chosen. The deputy manager agreed to change this support.
“We did note that those people who were living with dementia who may have forgotten what they had ordered, were not reminded or shown what they had chosen.” from the report
Activities for people with dementia
needs fixingThe home offered activities, but inspectors were told that activities for people living with dementia would be reviewed because people's needs had changed.
“The deputy manager told us activities for people living with dementia were going to be reviewed as people needs had changed.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made so people living with dementia are reminded of, or shown, their meal choices?
- 02What activities are now available for people living with dementia, and how are they matched to each person's changing needs?
- 03How are relatives involved in reviewing and updating care plans?
- 04How often are medicines staff training and competency checks completed?
- 05How will you make sure health professionals' advice and people's end-of-life wishes continue to be followed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous Good ratings in each area remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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 Paxton Hall Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,020 to £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 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.