CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Seven Hills Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe. They found effective use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and social distancing measures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Seven Hills Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice, with further work needed on best-interest assessments for COVID-19 testing.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 November 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus outbreak response.
Inspectors found the home was following safe infection-control procedures. They were assured about visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, waste disposal and outbreak management.
The home had updated its visitors policy, provided infection-control training and regularly checked staff competence. Inspectors also noted regular COVID-19 testing for people living and working at the home.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for all five areas.
Infection-control training
Staff had recent infection-control training, and their competence was checked regularly. Inspectors saw staff following the correct practices.
“All staff had received recent training in infection control and prevention and their competency in this area was regularly checked.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
The visitors policy had been updated to reflect government guidance. The home had ordered mobile screens to support safer indoor visits.
“The provider had updated their visitors policy to reflect the latest government guidance.” from the report
Clean premises
Inspectors found the premises clean. Clinical and infectious waste was disposed of safely.
“The premises were clean. The home was undergoing a refurbishment programme to better utilise communal spaces and to replace carpets with laminate flooring.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
People living and working at the home were regularly tested for COVID-19. Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was being used safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Best-interest assessments
minorThe CQC signposted the home to resources to develop its approach when people could not consent to a COVID-19 test. The report does not say that this was a breach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach regarding best interest assessments for people who lack capacity to consent to a Covid-19 test.” from the report
- 01How do you carry out and record best-interest assessments when someone cannot consent to a COVID-19 test?
- 02How often are staff infection-control skills checked, and what happens if a member of staff is not competent?
- 03How are visitors managed now, and are mobile screens or other arrangements still used?
- 04How do you manage social distancing and supervision for people living with dementia who wander with purpose?
- 05How would you manage a COVID-19 outbreak, including testing and protective equipment?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the other questions and the overall service were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and improvements since the previous inspection, with medicines policies needing review.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, kind and respectful care, suitable training, personalised care plans and activities for people to take part in.
The previous inspection in August 2017 rated the home Requires Improvement. Care plans did not always reflect people's needs and there was no evidence of activities. Inspectors found these issues had been addressed, including through a new electronic care planning system.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. Relatives and staff also spoke positively about the care.
“We observed staff to be kind and respectful throughout this inspection.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, life history and likes and dislikes. They were reviewed regularly and guided staff in providing individual care.
“People's care plans accurately reflected their needs and the different levels of support they required from staff.” from the report
Activities and community access
The home provided individual and group activities, including outings into the local community. This addressed a weakness found at the previous inspection.
“A range of individual and group activities were provided to people living in the home.” from the report
Good staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Staff received relevant training, supervision and appraisals.
“During this inspection, staff were visible and available to meet people's needs promptly.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager completed regular checks and used action plans when improvements were needed. Feedback from relatives and staff was also used to improve the home.
“The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and took action when issues were identified.” from the report
Medicines policies needed updating
minorInspectors found medicines were being obtained, stored and given safely, but said the home's policies might not reflect current good practice. They recommended reviewing and updating them.
“We recommend the provider considers current best available evidence and good practice guidance about medicine management and reviews its policies and procedures accordingly.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the medicines policies since the inspection recommendation?
- 02How do you check that staff use the electronic care planning system consistently and keep records up to date?
- 03What refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, including the lower ground floor flooring?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and preferences?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and giving feedback about the home?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, including care, staffing, the premises, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 November 2018 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 Seven Hills Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.