CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Foxview
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, detailed risk plans and systems to protect people from abuse. They noted that medicine audits had missed some recording shortfalls, but these were acted on immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before respite stays. Staff had relevant training, supported people's food and drink needs, and worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for this question. Inspectors observed respectful and compassionate interactions and said staff supported people's choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for this question. Care plans contained detail about people's needs, wishes, strengths and goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive leadership, involvement of relatives and systems for checking quality. Staff responded positively to feedback and addressed care-record shortfalls quickly.
What inspectors found, September 2023
St Anne's Community Services - Foxview was rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful care and improvements since the previous inspection, with some medicine records needing clearer checks.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 18 and 25 July 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home provides nursing short breaks for adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and autistic people. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, supported their choices and communicated respectfully. They found enough staff, safe recruitment, detailed risk plans and suitable training.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Effective and Well-led improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in March 2019. Inspectors found that an earlier staffing breach had been addressed.
Respectful support
Staff knew people well and treated them respectfully. They supported people to make choices and encouraged independence where possible.
“Staff engaged with people in a respectful and compassionate manner.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support when this had been agreed before a respite stay.
“There were enough staff deployed to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Detailed risk planning
Risk plans were tailored to individuals and included actions to reduce identified risks, including risks when people were out in the community.
“Risk management plans in care records. These were detailed and person centred.” from the report
Training and healthcare
Staff received a broad range of training and were supported to gain confidence. The home worked with healthcare professionals when people needed specialist support.
“The provider's training records showed staff completed a broad range of training when they started work” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives said they felt as involved as they wanted to be. Records showed that the home took steps to involve them in care.
“Records we checked showed the provider took steps to involve relatives in people's care.” from the report
Medicine audit checks
minorThe audit system did not identify every medicine-record problem. Inspectors found missing keys on some MAR charts and unclear care notes, although the manager acted immediately.
“However, we noted that the audit system had not identified all shortfalls for example keys on Medication administration record (MAR) charts not being in place and care notes not being recorded clearly.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine administration records have all the required keys and entries?
- 02What will you do if a person's care notes are unclear or incomplete?
- 03How will you make sure one-to-one support is in place before my relative arrives for a respite stay?
- 04How will you involve our family in assessing and updating the care plan?
- 05How do you support people to make choices when they communicate through facial expressions, body language or objects of reference?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection assessing the service's application of Right support, Right care and Right culture; it rated Safe, Effective and Well-led, while Caring and Responsive were not separately rated in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 2023 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, May 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but staff support and management checks were not reliable enough.
This was a planned inspection. Inspectors visited the home on 11 March 2019, reviewed two care plans and six medication records, and spoke with staff, managers and four relatives. They also telephoned relatives on 15 March 2019.
People were safe, treated kindly and supported with detailed care plans. Medicines were managed appropriately, healthcare was accessed when needed, and relatives knew how to raise concerns.
The home did not always provide staff with regular supervision, appraisals or up-to-date training. Management checks did not always identify problems, and staff said communication could be better. There had also been no fire drill in the previous 12 months.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The home was previously rated Good in July 2016.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, compassion and dignity. Relatives also spoke positively about the staff team.
“Our observations during this inspection confirmed staff were friendly, kind and compassionate.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans gave staff detailed information about people's routines, communication, health needs and preferences. Relatives were consulted about changes before respite stays.
“Care plans were person-centred and provided staff with detailed information about people's routines for different times of the day.” from the report
Good safeguarding and risk management
Staff had safeguarding training and could explain how they would recognise harm. Risk assessments covered several important health and safety needs.
“Systems to safeguard people from abuse were effective.” from the report
Appropriate medicines management
Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. There were systems for controlled medicines, although some supporting records needed better organisation.
“The storage, administration and disposal of medicines was managed appropriately.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
Staff involved health professionals when needed. The home used nearby health services and records showed input from specialist professionals.
“People received timely access to healthcare when they needed this support.” from the report
Fire drill overdue
needs fixingStaff understood what to do in a fire, but there had been no fire drill in the previous 12 months. The area manager said this needed immediate attention.
“Staff knew what to do in the event of fire, although the last fire drill took place in January 2018” from the report
Weak management checks
needs fixingMedication audits did not reflect concerns already identified by the area manager. Care plan audits were not taking place at the time of inspection.
“The area manager told us they had identified concerns regarding medication at the beginning of the year, although the audits for the same period did not reflect these findings.” from the report
Poor communication during management changes
needs fixingStaff records and discussions showed that communication from management needed to improve. The registered manager was on leave and cover managers were visiting from other homes.
“One staff member's supervision stated, 'We don't know what's happening'.” from the report
Sensory room unavailable
minorThe sensory room was being used to store equipment, so people could not use it during the inspection.
“A sensory room was being used as a storage area for equipment which meant this was not accessible at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01How many staff have now completed all required induction and refresher training?
- 02How often are staff receiving supervision and appraisals now?
- 03When was the next fire drill held after the inspection, and how are future drills recorded?
- 04Are care plan and medication audits now taking place regularly, and how are identified problems followed up?
- 05What has changed in the management structure and how are relatives kept informed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with a home visit on 11 March 2019 and telephone calls to relatives on 15 March 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 May 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 Foxview
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 March 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 Kirklees
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 £1,260 a week. 86 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.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.