CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Solden Hill House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding, risks were reviewed, there were enough staff and medicines were administered safely. Infection prevention arrangements were also judged satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supported people with food, health care, communication and independence. Mental capacity and best-interest decisions were recorded, and DoLS conditions were being met.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed kind and respectful interactions, with people encouraged to make choices and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were individualised and people were supported with communication, relationships, activities, work opportunities and cultural or religious needs. People were also supported to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, with quality checks and action plans in place. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the well-led rating improving from Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited on 14 April 2021. They spoke with six people, two relatives and 15 staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality records. They also checked infection control arrangements.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, trained staff and good support with health, food, communication and daily living skills. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home supported people to make choices, develop independence and maintain relationships. It helped people access the community, work opportunities and activities. The buildings were larger than current best-practice guidance suggests, and the site had limited immediate community access, but inspectors found no negative impact on people living there.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in 2018. The Well-led rating had previously been Requires Improvement and had improved to Good at this inspection. The inspection did not examine the circumstances of an earlier incident involving harm because that matter was subject to a criminal investigation.
Safeguarding and staffing
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. Inspectors found there were enough staff and that rotas could be adjusted around people's needs and wishes.
“There were enough staff to meet people needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, abilities, routines and support needs. The home adapted accommodation and support to help people make choices and live more independently.
“People had care plans in place which were individualised to them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke highly of staff. Inspectors observed positive interactions and saw staff respecting privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and people throughout our inspection.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to learn practical skills, access work opportunities, maintain relationships and take part in activities during COVID-19 restrictions.
“People were able to choose what skills they wanted to learn, for example, cooking, crossing the road safely, making hot drinks and doing their own laundry.” from the report
Improved leadership
The management team used audits, action plans and other quality checks. Inspectors judged the service well-led, improving the previous Requires Improvement rating.
“At this inspection this key question has now improved to good.” from the report
Building size
minorThe buildings were larger than the domestic-style setting described in current best-practice guidance for people with a learning disability. Inspectors said they found no negative impact on people living there.
“The services were larger than a domestic style property, however, there was no negative impact on people living there.” from the report
Limited immediate community access
minorThe home was in a rural setting with limited access to an immediate community. Inspectors found that people were supported to access the wider community using several transport methods.
“The service was also in a rural setting with limited access to an immediate community.” from the report
Refurbishment still underway
minorInspectors noted that some areas looked tired and needed refurbishment. Work was taking place during the inspection.
“The management team had identified areas of the service which were tired and required a refurbishment.” from the report
- 01How will you help my relative access the local community from this rural site?
- 02Which refurbishment work was still outstanding after the inspection, and has it now been completed?
- 03How will you support my relative to develop skills and become more independent?
- 04How are safeguarding concerns reported, reviewed and followed up?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in care planning and decisions?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions for the care home and personal care support in two supported living settings; CQC did not regulate the supported living premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 May 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Solden Hill House was rated Good overall, with safe, kind and personalised care, but the way the service was monitored and planned for the future Requires Improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced comprehensive visit on 25 January 2018. They spoke with people, relatives were not mentioned as being interviewed, and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training, complaints, incidents, rotas and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicines arrangements, trained staff, good support with food and healthcare, respectful care and activities based on people's choices.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The provider knew that people's needs were changing as they aged, but plans to update the building, activities and working practices had not all been completed promptly. Quality checks were not fully established, although some monitoring systems were put in place immediately after the inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on shifts to meet people's care needs and support their chosen activities.
“Staffing levels ensured that people's care and support needs were safely met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them warmly, respectfully and in a person-centred way.
“We observed that interaction between people using the service and staff was relaxed and respectful.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose how to spend their day and had access to a wide range of activities, hobbies and goals.
“People could choose from a wide range of activities such as furniture restoration, craft, pottery, music, dance, walking and shopping.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included information about people's lives, interests and needs. Staff supported people to communicate in ways that suited them.
“People received individualised and person centred care that met their needs.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe provider did not yet have fully established systems to check all parts of the service consistently. Inspectors raised medicine monitoring and the frequency of fire testing, and new systems were introduced after the visit but had not yet been assessed.
“Not all quality monitoring systems were fully established.” from the report
Future access to the building
needs fixingThe home recognised that ageing, dementia and reduced mobility could make parts of the building unsuitable. People using wheelchairs could not reach the activity rooms internally, and there was no lift to the bedrooms.
“People in wheelchairs could not access the activities rooms from within the home; instead they had to be wheeled outside to another door.” from the report
Improvement plans not completed promptly
needs fixingPlans to update the environment and working practices had been discussed, but not all actions had been completed in a timely way.
“Action plans had been set to update the environment but not all of these had been carried out in a timely way.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made on updating the building for people with reduced mobility, including access to activity rooms and bedrooms?
- 02How are medicines administration checks carried out now, and how do you make sure records are complete and consistent?
- 03How often are fire safety checks and tests completed, and how are missed or delayed checks identified?
- 04How are activities being adapted for people who have dementia, reduced concentration, reduced mobility or less energy?
- 05How will you assess whether the improvement plans have been completed and are working?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the care home, its premises and care, as well as personal care provided to one person living in sheltered housing on the site. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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 Solden Hill House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 2011.
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 West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.