CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Temple Croft Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, risk assessments, recruitment, accident reporting and infection control were managed safely, although staffing levels needed routine review.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, worked with health professionals, and helped people with nutrition, healthcare and daily choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They had choice and control over their routines and were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this focused inspection. The report says the overall rating was based on the findings from the inspected questions.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service. Staff described the manager as approachable, and records showed good working relationships with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and clear improvement, but staffing levels needed closer review.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 January 2022. One inspector spoke with two people using the home, a relative, the manager and staff. They also reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found that medicines, risks, infection control, staff training, nutrition and consent were managed appropriately.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. The home was clean, homely and offered communal, quiet and outdoor areas. Staff worked well with health professionals and families.
Inspectors noted that staff sometimes felt another staff member would have helped, particularly during COVID-19 pressures. They recommended that the home review how it monitors staffing levels. The home had improved from Requires Improvement in 2019 and was no longer in breach of regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed respectful interactions and found that people were supported to make choices and remain independent.
“People were respected, listened to and well cared for. They were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were given as prescribed. Risks were recorded in care plans and risk assessments, which were updated when needed.
“People's medication was administered safely.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff received induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisals. Their medicine skills were checked.
“Staff received an induction and on-going support and training.” from the report
Positive management
The manager and provider used regular audits and shared lessons with staff. People, relatives and staff could give feedback and raise concerns.
“The registered manager promoted a very positive, person-centred culture.” from the report
Clean and homely surroundings
The home was clean and tidy, with personalised rooms, shared areas, quieter spaces and accessible outdoor areas.
“The service was purpose built and provided an accessible, spacious and homely environment.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check each day that there are enough staff to meet people's needs?
- 02What is your plan when COVID-19 or other absences put pressure on staffing levels?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given correctly and that handwritten medicine records are double-signed?
- 04How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 05How will you show that the staffing-level recommendation from this inspection has been acted on?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led, with infection prevention and COVID-19 vaccination checks; Responsive was not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines management, weak oversight and some shortfalls in respectful care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 20 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had problems with medicines, risk assessments, accident records and infection control. Staff had not had their medicines skills checked. One person’s fall was not handed over promptly, which delayed medical attention. Some confidential information was also left unsecured.
People and relatives generally said they were happy with the care and felt safe. Food, healthcare support, communication and complaints handling were positive. However, activities were limited and inspectors saw one person not treated respectfully.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all Requires Improvement, while Responsive was Good. The home had no registered manager, and the provider was required to take action over breaches of regulations.
People generally felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staffing levels were enough for their needs. Staff also knew safeguarding procedures.
“People told us there was sufficient staff to meet there needs.” from the report
Positive care feedback
People and relatives generally described the staff positively and said people received person-centred care.
“People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care they received and that they received person centred care.” from the report
Food and dietary support
People were offered food and drink, staff supported them at mealtimes, and special diets were catered for.
“Kitchen staff were aware of people's dietary preferences and ensured special diets were catered for.” from the report
Complaints process
The home had a complaints procedure, and people and relatives felt able to raise concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they felt confident to raise any concerns of complaints and that they would be dealt with.” from the report
Medicines and risks
seriousMedicines were not always administered or recorded safely. Risk assessments and care plans did not always give staff enough guidance.
“Medication was not administered safely. The balance of medications administered was inconsistent with the amount of prescribed medication to be administered.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousManagement checks had failed to identify several problems. Records about accidents, recruitment and care quality were not consistently accurate or properly reviewed.
“Systems were not effective to assess, monitor and improve the quality of service people received, records were not always accurate and contemporaneous.” from the report
Delayed response after a fall
seriousOn one occasion, information about a fall was not passed to staff. This delayed seeking medical attention.
“This led to a delay in seeking medical attention.” from the report
Respect and confidentiality
needs fixingInspectors saw one person treated without enough empathy. Personal information, including post and medicines records, was left where it could be seen.
“People's personal information was not always securely protected to ensure confidentiality.” from the report
Limited activities
minorInspectors observed few activities during the visit and recommended that the provider review what was offered.
“The service had an activities coordinator to facilitate activities, however, during the inspection we saw limited activities to provide people with stimulation.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure medicines are given as prescribed, recorded correctly and checked through staff competency assessments?
- 02How are falls and other accidents now recorded, reviewed and used to identify patterns or prevent recurrence?
- 03How are risks assessed and updated when a person’s needs or circumstances change?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what has been done to strengthen quality checks since the inspection?
- 05What regular activities are now available, especially for people living with dementia?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led deteriorated from Good, while Responsive remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 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 Temple Croft Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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
12 live-in carers within about an hour of North East 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 £1,350 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 7 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.