CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sandhall Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Sandhall Park was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, including COVID-19 arrangements, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using suitable visiting, cleaning, testing, distancing and personal protective equipment arrangements. They also found that risks linked to COVID-19 had been assessed and managed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Family visits
People were supported to see family and friends. Alternative ways to stay in contact were available if there was an outbreak.
“People were supported to have visitors and safe visiting processes were followed in line with national guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
Parts of the home were being renovated to support infection control. Inspectors found suitable cleaning systems and products.
“Areas of the service were being renovated to promote good infection control.” from the report
COVID-19 precautions
COVID-19 risks to people and staff had been assessed. Staff took part in regular testing, were vaccinated and used PPE appropriately.
“Staff took part in regular testing for COVID-19 and were vaccinated.” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for safe admissions, outbreak management, testing and infection control.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place if staffing pressures increase?
- 02How would family visits and contact be supported during a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested for COVID-19?
- 04What renovation work is still taking place, and how is it affecting people living in the home?
- 05How do staff use PPE and manage cleaning in shared areas?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices and staffing pressures, so the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 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, August 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but records, medicines, consent and quality checks were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 and 26 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and other management records.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Care was personalised, activities were available, complaints were managed, and there were enough staff. The home was clean, and people could access food, drink and healthcare.
However, some risk information and care records were incomplete or out of date. Medicines procedures were not always followed. Records showing how decisions were made for people who could not consent were also incomplete. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led, and Good for Caring and Responsive.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, respectful relationships. People were supported with dignity and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
“People received kind, caring and compassionate support. People decided how they were supported and when.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines and interests. People and relatives were involved in care planning where possible.
“People received personalised care that was tailored to their needs and wishes.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and safe recruitment checks. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“There were enough staff on duty to provide people with safe care and support.” from the report
Activities and engagement
People could take part in exercise, music, crafts and community activities. The home also arranged events for people and families.
“People were supported to access a range of social and leisure activities and follow their interests.” from the report
Incomplete risk and care records
seriousSome records did not contain the information staff needed to manage people's care safely. Risk plans were sometimes out of date or lacked clear instructions.
“The quality of the record keeping varied and some records we looked at did not have the right information in them to manage people's care safely.” from the report
Medicines procedures
seriousInformation about why some medicines were prescribed was not clear in care plans. A controlled medicine was put in a person's waste bin, which did not follow the home's policy.
“We observed a controlled drug was disposed of inappropriately in a person's waste bin in their room.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingSome representatives had signed consent forms without legal authority. Best-interest decisions were not always evidenced or recorded.
“Where people had been deemed to lack capacity to give consent, we found a lack of evidence best interest meetings had taken place and documented consistently.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's governance systems had not identified several problems with risk management, medicines and consent. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.
“We found the governance systems in place had failed to pick up a number of issues we identified during our inspection in relation to risk management, medicines and consent to care and treatment.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure every person's risk assessment and care plan is up to date and gives staff clear instructions?
- 02What changes have you made to medicines procedures, including the safe disposal of controlled medicines?
- 03How do you now record mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions?
- 04What actions were included in the provider's action plan after the Regulation 17 breach, and which have been completed?
- 05How many staff currently have end-of-life care training, given that only two staff had received this training at the inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; the previous Requires Improvement rating was published in February 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 2019 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 Sandhall Park
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 September 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“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.