CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Robin Hood House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found incomplete risk assessments, medicines that were missed or not recorded safely, insufficient staffing and many unwitnessed falls. Infection prevention arrangements were found to be satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and management systems did not reliably identify problems with medicines, staffing, falls, safeguarding or care records. The provider developed a service improvement plan after the inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Robin Hood House: Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, staffing, falls and management checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 September, 12 October and 19 October 2022. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after concerns about medicines, pressure care, falls and staffing. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicine records, recruitment files and other documents.
The home was not always safe. Risk assessments were incomplete or out of date, some medicines were missed or recorded incorrectly, and there were not enough staff at times. Inspectors found 27 falls over the period checked, most unwitnessed and mainly in communal areas.
Management checks did not reliably find these problems. Care records were incomplete, some safeguarding incidents were not reported, and lessons from falls and other incidents were not consistently discussed. The provider increased staffing after the inspection and created a service improvement plan.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. This means the inspection found important shortfalls and limited assurance about safety, but it was not rated Inadequate or placed in special measures in this report.
People felt safe
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff and management. People told inspectors they felt safe.
“People and relatives were positive about the staff team and management in the home. People told us they felt safe.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitor safety, personal protective equipment and outbreak arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The recruitment records inspectors reviewed were complete and included references and appropriate background checks.
“The recruitment of staff to the home was safe. Recruitment documentation was fully completed, references were gathered, and confirmation of an appropriate level DBS check obtained.” from the report
Medicines and risk management
seriousSome medicines were missed or given without safe recording. Risk assessments were not always updated after incidents, increasing the risk that suitable protective measures were not considered.
“Medicines for people were not always administered as prescribed.” from the report
Staffing and falls
seriousThe home often had fewer care staff than the manager said were needed. Inspectors found 27 recorded falls, most unwitnessed, and staff were also expected to prepare meals.
“There were 27 falls recorded from the 13 June 2022 to 30 September 2022. 23 falls were unwitnessed and the majority of these happened whilst people were in communal areas.” from the report
Incomplete care records
seriousRecords did not always show the care people received, including bathing, showering and repositioning. Some care plans were missing, out of date or contradictory.
“Care records were incomplete and not reflective of the care people received.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify several problems found during the inspection. The systems for learning from incidents and improving practice were not firmly established.
“Systems were either not in place or not robust enough to oversee the quality of the service and drive improvement.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
seriousSome incidents, including an incident where one person physically harmed another, were not reported to the local authority or CQC as required.
“However, incidents reported to the management team were not always recognised as safeguarding incidents and were not reported to the local authority safeguarding team.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are now scheduled on each day and night shift, and how is this checked when staff are absent?
- 02What changes have been made to medicine administration and recording since inspectors found missed doses and incorrectly signed records?
- 03How are falls now reviewed, especially unwitnessed falls in communal areas, and what staffing or supervision changes have followed?
- 04How do you make sure care records are complete and up to date, including records of bathing, showering and repositioning?
- 05How are safeguarding incidents reported to the local authority and CQC, and how are lessons shared with staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Robin Hood House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, with some hygiene practices needing further development.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 23 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 affected people.
The home had staff training on infection control and using protective equipment. Cleaning records were completed and checked. Inspectors were assured that testing, admissions, visiting, protective equipment and outbreak arrangements were being managed safely.
The visiting process was changed after the inspection so there were no restrictions that were not in line with current government guidance. The overall service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full quality rating.
Infection control training
Staff had training in infection prevention and control and in putting on and removing protective equipment. External health professionals also provided refresher training.
“Staff received Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) training and how to correctly put on and take off their Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).” from the report
Cleaning checks
Staff completed cleaning schedules, and the registered manager checked whether areas in the home were clean.
“Cleaning schedules were completed by staff and the registered manager checked if areas in the home were clean.” from the report
Testing and protective measures
People, staff and visitors were tested under the arrangements described in the report. Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was being used safely and effectively.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home supported visits and changed its process after the inspection to remove restrictions that did not match current government guidance.
“People were enabled to receive visitors and maintained contact with people important to them.” from the report
Hygiene practices
minorInspectors signposted the home to resources to develop its approach to promoting good hygiene practices in the premises.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach to promote good hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the visiting process after the inspection, and what are the current visiting arrangements?
- 02How do you now promote and check good hygiene practices throughout the home?
- 03How often do staff receive refresher training in infection prevention, control and protective equipment?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and how do you check that these do not affect residents?
- 05What testing arrangements are currently used for residents, staff and visitors?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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.
Every inspection of Robin Hood House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.