CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sowerby House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Overall rating Requires Improvement; Safe was rated Inadequate, with serious concerns about staffing, medicines, infection control and people’s legal safeguards.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 and 18 July 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files, policies and quality checks.
Inspectors found people were at risk because risks were not always properly assessed or managed. There were not enough staff, call bells could be delayed, some medicines were not stored safely and the home was visibly unclean. Staff did not always follow people’s preferences.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe was rated Inadequate. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The report says this was the first inspection since the new provider registered, but the service had also been rated Requires Improvement under the previous provider.
Caring staff
Inspectors found staff were caring and wanted the best for people, although time pressures limited the support they could provide.
“Staff who we spoke with were caring and wanted what was best for the people however, they shared their frustrations about their limited time to offer meaningful support.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to maintain relationships with their families through visits and telephone contact.
“People were supported to have relationships with their families, some people had regular visits and staff supported people to use the telephone to stay in contact.” from the report
Accessible communication
The home provided information in verbal, written and pictorial formats to help people understand the dining menu and make choices.
“The communication needs of the people were met and staff ensured people could understand the information given to them.” from the report
People were not safe
seriousRisks were not always assessed, monitored or managed. Records were incomplete, some safety actions were not followed and the fire risk assessment was out of date.
“Risks to people had not always been fully assessed, monitored or managed.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThere were not enough staff to meet people’s needs safely and promptly. Inspectors observed people waiting for help and areas of the home without staff support.
“There were not enough staff to ensure the needs and preferences of the people were met in a safe and timely manner.” from the report
Medicines and cleanliness
seriousSome medicines were stored in people’s rooms when they did not belong to them, and records for variable doses and pain patches were incomplete. The home was visibly unclean and cleaning tasks were missed.
“The provider failed to ensure the safe management and storage of some medications.” from the report
Legal safeguards
seriousThe home did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act. Some people may have been deprived of their liberty without the correct legal authority, and some best-interest records were missing.
“Failure to ensure people were not deprived of their liberty without lawful authority is a breach of regulation 13” from the report
Preferences not followed
needs fixingPeople’s choices about daily care were not always recorded or respected. Inspectors gave examples involving bathing and snacks.
“People lacked choice of support offered. Their wishes and preferences had not been followed by staff.” from the report
Weak improvement systems
needs fixingAudits and checks did not identify all the shortfalls, and the home did not consistently learn from complaints, incidents or feedback.
“Where audits had highlighted areas of improvement, appropriate and timely action had not been taken to address these areas.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are on each shift now, and how do you calculate whether this is enough for the current residents’ needs?
- 02What has been done to ensure medicines are stored safely and that variable-dose medicines and pain patches are recorded correctly?
- 03What cleaning work was missed at the inspection, and how do you now check that infection control tasks are completed?
- 04How are people’s mental capacity, best-interest decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications now recorded and reviewed?
- 05What changes have been made so people cared for in their rooms receive activities, stimulation and support based on their interests?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 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.
Every inspection of Sowerby House
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 August 2021.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North 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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.