CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Hermitage Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risks were assessed and managed, medicines were generally given as prescribed, staff were trained, and infection control arrangements were effective. They noted that some guidance for when-required medicines and records for medicinal skin patches needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans contained detailed information about people's health, nutrition, mobility and other needs. Staff had relevant training, people had balanced food and drinks, and healthcare referrals were made when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff treated people with kindness, protected their dignity and involved them in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People did not always have enough support or time to follow their own interests. Activities were often communal, and some people wanted more activities suited to their needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, clear improvement plans and regular checks on the quality and safety of the service. People and staff felt that progress had been made since the new provider took over.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home needed to improve personalised activities and time spent on people's interests.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 4 and 5 January 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care files, medicine records and other records, and observed care.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe medicines processes, clean surroundings and good support with health, food and decision-making. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Activities were often group-based, and people did not always have enough time or support to follow their own interests. Inspectors also questioned how long some people waited at mealtimes. This was the first inspection of the newly registered service. The previous provider had been rated Inadequate in July 2021, and inspectors found significant improvements after the new provider took over.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and friendly. Inspectors saw staff protect people's dignity and involve them before providing care.
“Staff were observed treating people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Safe staffing and training
The provider used a staffing tool and inspectors found people's needs were met promptly. Staff had training and were assessed as competent for important tasks.
“People were supported by staff who had received training specific to their role and had acquired the necessary skills to support them safely.” from the report
Good care planning
Care plans included detailed information about people's health, risks and daily support. Staff recorded care and managers reviewed it.
“People's care plans contained detailed assessments of their needs and indicated when additional support was required.” from the report
Improvement under new provider
Inspectors found significant changes to the accommodation and safety of care. Management had action plans and systems to check whether improvements were being maintained.
“The new provider of this service has made significant changes since taking over the service.” from the report
Not enough personalised activities
needs fixingPeople were not always able to follow their own interests. Activities were often held in groups, and staff said they did not always have time to spend with people individually.
“People were not always able to pursue their own interests and staff were observed being task focussed.” from the report
Long mealtimes
needs fixingSome people sat at the table for a considerable time while waiting during meals. The provider said this would be reviewed with staff.
“We questioned the length of time meals times took as some people were seated at the table for a long period of time.” from the report
Some medicines records needed improvement
needs fixingThe instructions for some when-required medicines were not person-centred or detailed enough. Records for applying medicinal skin patches were not completed to a standard that showed they were applied safely.
“Records used to monitor the application of medicinal skin patches were not being completed to a standard that would demonstrate these patches were being applied safely and in accordance with the manufacturer's guidance .” from the report
- 01What one-to-one activities are now available for residents who do not enjoy group activities?
- 02How do you identify and record each resident's interests, and how often is this reviewed?
- 03What changes have been made to reduce the time people spend waiting at mealtimes?
- 04How are records for medicinal skin patches checked, and how are staff supported to follow the guidance?
- 05How will you measure whether the planned improvements to personalised care are working?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered service, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control arrangements; the previous Inadequate rating was under the former provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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.
Every inspection of The Hermitage Care Home
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2021Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Goodstayed GoodEffective: Good
- June 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.