CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Samuel Hobson House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, trained medicines staff and systems for learning from accidents and incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had the training and support needed for their roles. The home provided suitable food and drink and worked with healthcare professionals, although some mental capacity assessments lacked enough detail.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated as individuals and staff respected their privacy, dignity and independence. People were involved in daily decisions where possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people's needs and preferences. People were supported with communication, relationships, activities, complaints and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a management structure, quality checks and an open culture. An improvement plan was in place after a local authority visit, covering areas including staff training and care plans.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Samuel Hobson House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care records still being improved.
This was an unannounced first inspection. Inspectors spoke with 13 people living at the home, 8 relatives and friends, 11 staff and 1 healthcare professional. They reviewed care plans, medicines, accidents, safeguarding, staff training, recruitment, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans and good links with health professionals.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They were supported to make choices, maintain relationships and take part in activities. The home was transferring care plans to a new system, and some mental capacity assessments did not yet explain decisions in enough detail.
People felt safe
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, and that safeguarding and incident systems were in place.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people warmly and respected their dignity, privacy, independence and choices.
“People were treated well and respected as individuals.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's support needs and communication needs. Staff supported people to choose their routines, activities and meals.
“Care and support was personalised and responsive to people's individual needs and interests.” from the report
Good links with health services
The home worked with GPs, district nurses, speech and language therapists and other professionals when people needed support.
“Staff worked with external professionals which included GPs, speech and language therapists and district nurses.” from the report
Care plans were being transferred
needs fixingThe home was moving care plans to a new system. It had a plan to add more information about people's life experiences and preferences.
“At the time of the inspection the provider was in the process of transferring care plans to a new system.” from the report
Some capacity assessments lacked detail
needs fixingMental capacity assessments had been completed, but they did not always explain clearly how decisions had been reached. The home planned to improve this on the new care planning system.
“Mental capacity assessments had been completed, although these did not always have enough detail about how a decision was reached.” from the report
Improvement plan still in progress
minorThe home was completing an improvement plan following a local authority visit. This included staff training, care plans, meetings with relatives and protected time for activities.
“The provider was completing an improvement plan which they put in place following a visit from the local authority.” from the report
- 01How far has the transfer to the new care planning system progressed, and how do you check that each care plan includes the person's history and preferences?
- 02How do you record and review the reasons behind decisions for people who may lack mental capacity?
- 03What actions from the local authority improvement plan are still outstanding?
- 04How will you make sure my relative receives activities that match their interests and communication needs?
- 05How do you review accidents, falls and other incidents, and tell families about any changes made as a result?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, with both the premises and care provided reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control at Samuel Hobson House.
The CQC carried out an announced, targeted inspection on 07 December 2020. It checked the home's infection prevention and control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreaks safely. Infection prevention policies were up to date.
The home had shared its visiting arrangements with relatives and used video calls, phone calls and window visits when in-person visits were restricted. Staff were grouped to reduce the risk of infection spreading, and the building was clean and well maintained.
This was not a full inspection of the home's overall quality. The service was inspected but not rated.
Visiting arrangements
The home had shared its visiting policy with relatives. This included risk assessments, a booking system and safety procedures.
“The visiting policy had been shared with relatives. This included a visitor risk assessment, booking system and details of the procedure to be followed to keep people safe.” from the report
Contact with relatives
When visits were restricted, the home used video calls, phone calls and window visits. Relatives also received regular updates.
“When visits had been restricted other methods were used to ensure people maintained contact with their loved ones such as, video/phone calls and window visits.” from the report
Reducing infection spread
Staff were organised into zones and groups to reduce the risk of infection spreading between people and areas.
“Zoning and cohorting of staff was in place to ensure the risk of cross transmission was reduced.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the environment clean and well maintained, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The environment was well maintained and clean. Additional cleaning of regular touchpoints was completed to lower the risk of cross transmission.” from the report
Staff wellbeing
The registered manager supported staff with anxieties, and an internal health and wellbeing service was available.
“Staff were supported by the registered manager to lower any anxieties and the provider had implemented an internal health and wellbeing service for staff to access if needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visitor risk assessment and booking arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are staff zoning and grouping arranged now to reduce the risk of infection spreading?
- 03How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 04How does the home support staff who feel anxious, and is the internal health and wellbeing service still available?
- 05How does the home currently manage PPE, testing, new admissions and infection outbreaks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other quality areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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 Samuel Hobson House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2020.
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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.