CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Ings
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, detailed risk assessments and safe medicines systems. They were only somewhat assured about PPE use and testing arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised assessments and care plans, access to health professionals and support with food and daily living. Some staff did not fully understand the Mental Capacity Act, so further training was agreed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives gave positive feedback. Staff were observed to be warm, respectful and supportive of privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records reflected people's histories, preferences and communication needs. People were supported with relationships, activities, education, training and everyday living skills.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, an open culture and effective quality monitoring. The provider worked with health and social care organisations and had up-to-date policies.
What inspectors found, July 2022
The Ings was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some improvements needed in mask use and staff understanding of mental capacity law.
This was the first inspection since the home registered in April 2021. The visit was unannounced and took place on 21 June 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, managers and staff. They also looked around the building and reviewed care, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, detailed care plans, safe medicines systems and support that promoted choice, independence and access to health care.
People were described as receiving kind and respectful care. Inspectors also found a positive culture and systems to monitor quality. They noted that not all staff were seen wearing masks, testing arrangements needed further guidance, and some staff needed more training on the Mental Capacity Act.
Personalised support
Staff focused on people's strengths, communication needs, choices and aspirations. Care records were personalised and helped staff provide consistent support.
“People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm relationships between people and staff. People's privacy, dignity, cultural needs and personal choices were respected.
“Staff members showed warmth and respect when interacting with people.” from the report
Safety and staffing
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, risk assessments, building checks and medicines arrangements were in place.
“There were enough staff on shift to meet people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, develop skills, prepare meals, access the community and take part in activities that mattered to them.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.” from the report
Positive leadership
Staff described managers as approachable and supportive. Inspectors found an open culture and systems for checking and improving quality.
“There was an open and positive culture.” from the report
Mask use
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured about PPE because not all staff were seen wearing masks. Management agreed to complete individual risk assessments where masks caused distress or affected communication.
“Not all staff were seen to be wearing masks.” from the report
Infection testing arrangements
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that testing arrangements were being accessed and monitored properly. The registered manager was directed to further guidance on monitoring staff testing.
“We signposted the registered manager to further guidance on monitoring testing for staff.” from the report
Mental capacity training
needs fixingMost staff understood the Mental Capacity Act, but some could not fully explain it. Management agreed that further training would be offered to all staff.
“However, some staff members were not fully able to explain their understanding of the MCA.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken since the inspection to make sure staff use PPE appropriately?
- 02How are staff testing arrangements now monitored?
- 03What further Mental Capacity Act training has staff received, and how is their understanding checked?
- 04How will you support my relative to develop independence and take part in activities they choose?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing their care and raising concerns?
This was the first comprehensive inspection, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, with particular attention to the principles of right support, right care and right culture. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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 The Ings
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 April 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 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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. 82 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.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.