CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Saltshouse Haven Care Home
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 insufficient staff, delays in care, safeguarding systems that were not always followed, and infection control problems. Recruitment and medicines processes were safe.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some staff training was out of date and supervision was limited. Mealtime support was inconsistent, although mental capacity, best-interest and consent processes were in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not identify or fix important problems. Feedback and complaints were not consistently recorded or used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe staffing, safeguarding, infection control and management weaknesses, although some care was good.
This was an unannounced inspection visit on 8 and 14 June 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records, and observed care and mealtimes.
The quality of care varied between the five lodges. Inspectors found delays caused by staff shortages, concerns about how some people were spoken to, and problems with infection control. Staff training and supervision were also not always up to date.
The home had safe recruitment and medicines processes. Staff supported people to make choices where possible, and mental capacity and best-interest processes were in place.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Requires Improvement. This means the service was not consistently safe or effective, and there was limited assurance that management systems would identify and fix problems.
Medicines
Inspectors found medicines were received, stored and returned safely. Staff showed good knowledge of medicines procedures.
“There were safe medicines processes in place. Medicines were safely received, stored and returned to pharmacy when they were no longer required.” from the report
Mental capacity and consent
Mental capacity assessments and best-interest meetings were completed where needed. Staff asked for consent before providing care.
“Staff gained consent from people before providing any care and support.” from the report
Emergency planning
Personal emergency evacuation plans explained the support each person would need in an emergency. Equipment was checked regularly.
“Personal emergency evacuation plans were available and detailed the level of support each person would require in the event of an emergency evacuation.” from the report
Too few staff
seriousPeople and staff reported waiting for care, including help at night. The home's own staffing tool showed a shortfall of 70 hours of direct care.
“The registered manager had a dependency tool in place. This tool calculated that the service was short by 70 hours of direct care.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns
seriousSafeguarding procedures were not always followed. Inspectors found delays in updating care plans and action, and observed some staff speaking to people inappropriately.
“People were not protected from abuse, even when concerns had been raised with the registered manager.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome furniture, bedding, carpets and equipment were worn, stained, damaged or unclean. PPE was not always available, and earlier concerns had not been fully resolved.
“We identified shower chairs, beds and bed sides that were unclean or damaged and could not be cleaned effectively.” from the report
Training and supervision
seriousSome staff training was six months out of date. Staff also had limited supervision and lacked sufficient knowledge about safeguarding and diabetes.
“Staff lacked sufficient knowledge around safeguarding and diabetes which meant people were at risk.” from the report
Mealtimes
needs fixingMealtime support varied between lodges. There was not always enough choice, staff did not always know the menu, and the provider was asked to review its practice.
“Best practice was not being followed including a lack of choice and poor practice when supporting people with their meals.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousManagement checks failed to identify problems found by inspectors. Complaints and feedback about staffing, moving and handling, and meals were not used effectively to improve the service.
“Governance systems had failed to identify and address the shortfalls found at inspection.” from the report
- 01What is the current staffing level in each lodge, especially at night, and how do you prevent people waiting for care?
- 02What action has been taken to make sure safeguarding concerns are recorded, investigated and acted on promptly?
- 03Which cleaning, repair and PPE problems identified by inspectors have now been fixed, and how is this checked?
- 04How are staff training and supervision kept up to date, particularly for safeguarding and diabetes?
- 05What has changed about mealtimes, food choice and recording relatives' and residents' concerns?
The report rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated in this inspection report, and the inspection also included infection prevention and control checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 July 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, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection controls but gaps in testing oversight, cleaning and policy updates.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 6 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
The home had arrangements for visits, personal protective equipment, testing, staff training and COVID-19 vaccination. Inspectors were assured about shielding, social distancing, admissions, PPE, managing outbreaks and facilitating visits.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about visitor infection controls, testing oversight, cleaning in one lodge and some policy updates. The overall service and Safe question were inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Protective equipment
Staff were using personal protective equipment in line with government guidance.
“Staff were wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with government guidance.” from the report
Testing and training
People were included in regular testing, and staff had infection prevention and control training. Infection control champions were also in place.
“Staff had received training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and IPC champions were in place.” from the report
Visits and vaccination
Visits were arranged in line with government guidance, and the home met the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated.
“Visits were arranged in line with government guidance.” from the report
Visitor control records
needs fixingSystems were in place to help prevent infection from visitors, but not all staff knew about them or recorded that they had followed them.
“There were systems in place to ensure this, but not all staff were aware of or recorded they followed these systems.” from the report
Testing oversight
needs fixingStaff were testing in line with government guidance, but the home did not have a system to monitor and oversee this.
“Staff were testing in line with government guidance but there was no system in place for monitoring and oversight of this.” from the report
Cleaning in one lodge
needs fixingMaintenance problems in one lodge meant effective cleaning could not take place. An action plan was created after the inspection.
“Maintenance issues in one lodge meant that effective cleaning could not take place.” from the report
Policies and action plans
needs fixingSome infection control policies needed updating, and action plans needed review to make sure they supported improvement.
“Some policies were due to be updated and action plans required review to ensure they drove forward improvements.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to fix the maintenance problems that affected cleaning in one lodge?
- 02How do you now monitor and oversee COVID-19 testing for people living here and staff?
- 03How do you check that staff follow and record the visitor infection control procedures?
- 04Which infection prevention and control policies have been updated since the inspection?
- 05How are the action plans reviewed to make sure they lead to improvements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 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 Saltshouse Haven Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 2018.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of
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 £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 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.”
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.