CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sandhills Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe recruitment, enough staff, risk assessments, safeguarding arrangements and safe medicines processes. Infection prevention and control arrangements also gave inspectors assurance.
- Effective?
- Good
- Consent and best-interest arrangements were in place, and people's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. However, staff did not always receive training for individual needs, including Parkinson's disease and diabetes.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not covered by this focused inspection. The report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried forward from the last inspection when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and care plans included personal histories, preferences and communication guidance. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home's leadership and governance were not always consistent. Audits did not always identify issues, and handover records did not always record actions needed or completed.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Sandhills Court Care Home is rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, personalised care, but leadership and records still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 5 and 6 April 2022. Inspectors spoke with staff, people living in the home and relatives. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, audits and other records, and checked the environment and infection control.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Responsive. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines support, suitable risk assessments, personalised care plans, access to health professionals and support for activities, communication and complaints.
The Well-led rating remained Requires Improvement. Quality checks were not always effective, and some records did not contain important information, including actions from handovers. Staff did not always have training for individual needs such as Parkinson's disease and diabetes. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement because earlier legal breaches had been addressed.
Enough suitable staff
Staff were safely recruited and inspectors found staffing levels were safe. The home could consider increasing staffing when someone needed extra support.
“Staff had been recruited safely and there were enough staff on duty.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and care plans reflected their needs, preferences and abilities. People were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans.
“Staff knew people well and used this knowledge to provide personalised care.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were safely received, stored, given and disposed of. Staff training and competency checks were in place.
“Medicines were safely received, stored, administered and destroyed if they were no longer required.” from the report
Respect and involvement
People were consulted about menus, activities and the running of the home. Inspectors described the atmosphere as warm and supportive.
“The home was welcoming, and the atmosphere was warm and supportive.” from the report
Quality checks did not always work
needs fixingThe home's audits and monitoring systems did not always identify or address problems. The provider was asked to develop a better system for making sure records reflected people's needs.
“However, these were inconsistent and did not always capture the required information.” from the report
Important handover information was missing
needs fixingHandover records did not always show which actions were needed and completed. This could make it harder for staff to understand people's most up-to-date needs.
“Records did not always evidence important information about people using the service.” from the report
Some specific training was missing
needs fixingStaff did not always receive training linked to people's assessed needs. The report specifically mentions Parkinson's disease and diabetes.
“Staff did not always receive specific training to meet people's individual assessed needs.” from the report
- 01What specific training do staff now receive for Parkinson's disease and diabetes?
- 02How do you check that handover records contain all actions needed for each person's current care?
- 03What changes have you made to the quality audits since this inspection?
- 04What improvements remain on the home's improvement plan, and how are they being checked?
- 05How are families involved when care plans are reviewed or when a person's needs change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not covered, and ratings for key questions not inspected were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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, December 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found people felt safe and well cared for, but risks, consent, medicines and management needed urgent improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 3 and 8 November 2021. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe, Responsive and Well-led, and added Effective after finding concerns. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had problems recording and managing risks, including falls, choking, weight loss, specialist equipment and emergency evacuation. Medicines records were not always reliable. Care plans did not always give staff enough information, reviews were irregular, and the Mental Capacity Act was not followed consistently.
People told inspectors they felt safe and well looked after. The home was clean, infection control arrangements were suitable, staff recruitment was safe, meals were praised and activities were available. However, the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The provider was asked for an action plan and will be monitored and re-inspected.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and well looked after. Staff knew how to raise safeguarding concerns.
“People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the service.” from the report
Infection control
The home was clean and inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, testing, protective equipment and visiting arrangements were in place.
“We were assured the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Safe recruitment and training
The provider carried out relevant recruitment checks. Staff had training, regular supervision and the skills needed for their roles, although their knowledge of mental capacity law was weak.
“The provider recruited staff safely.” from the report
Food and activities
People had a varied diet and praised the food. The home offered social activities and helped people maintain relationships with family and friends.
“People praised the quality of the meals and food provided.” from the report
Consent was not properly recorded
seriousThere was not enough evidence of mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. Restrictions such as lowered beds and some medicine arrangements were not always recorded as least restrictive and in people's best interests.
“The service was not following the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Care plans were not reliable
needs fixingCare plans did not always contain enough information about people's physical and mental health needs. Reviews were irregular and people were not always involved in decisions.
“Systems did not ensure that care plans clearly identified all the needs people had and did not outline actions staff needed to take to meet them.” from the report
Weak oversight and learning
seriousQuality systems did not consistently identify or fix problems. Inspectors found 395 recorded accidents, incidents or falls since April 2021, but only five lessons learned were identified.
“Themes and trends were not identified through systems currently in place.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to risk assessments for falls, choking, weight loss, specialist equipment and emergency evacuation?
- 02How are prescribed thickeners now recorded, and how are medicine fridge temperatures checked and acted on?
- 03How do you record mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions for restrictions, medicines and COVID-19 testing?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed, and how are people and their relatives involved in those reviews?
- 05What has changed in the quality monitoring system since the warning notice, including how accidents, incidents and falls are analysed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, with Effective added during the visit; the other key question was not inspected and previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 December 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.
Every inspection of Sandhills Court Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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. 29 can care for a couple. 11 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.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.