Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at The Limes

Requires improvementpublished 12 November 2022, 3 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Risks linked to health conditions, catheter care, fire doors and medicines were not always identified or managed safely. People were also affected by staffing shortages and some staff did not know their needs.
Effective?
Requires improvement
Staff training and supervision were not always up to date. Care plans were generic, mealtime support was inconsistent and records did not always show that health professionals' advice had been followed.
Caring?
Good
No rating was given for Caring in this inspection report.
Responsive?
Good
No rating was given for Responsive in this inspection report.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management systems had not identified or dealt with important problems. Staff did not always feel listened to or supported, and records were not always reliable.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2022

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines practice, staff shortages and weak management oversight.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 28 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records, and observed care.

Inspectors found that risks were not always assessed or managed properly. Medicines records and administration were not always safe. There were not enough staff at times, and some agency staff did not know people's needs. Staff training and supervision were also incomplete.

The mealtime experience was poor and care records were not always accurate or personalised. Management checks had not found or dealt with problems quickly enough. The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. The home was previously rated Good overall in 2017, while Effective was previously rated Outstanding.

What inspectors praised
  • Safeguarding

    The home had safeguarding systems, and staff knew what to do if they were worried about abuse. Referrals to the local safeguarding team were made promptly.

    “Systems and processes were in place to ensure that people were protected from abuse.” from the report
  • Recruitment checks

    Inspectors found that pre-employment checks were carried out to assess whether staff were suitable to work at the home.

    “Pre-employment checks were performed on staff to ensure they were suitable to work at the service.” from the report
  • Consent

    Staff gained consent before providing care. People's capacity to consent had been considered under the Mental Capacity Act.

    “Staff gained consent from people before providing any care and support.” from the report
  • Healthcare access

    People were supported to contact doctors and district nurses when needed. Records showed that referrals and visits were arranged.

    “People were supported to access health care services such as doctors and district nurses.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicine safety

    serious

    Some medicines were given in a way that did not match the prescription. Records, instructions and as-needed medicine guidance were not always complete.

    “People's medicines were not always administered safely.” from the report
  • Risks and records

    serious

    Care plans and risk assessments did not always contain the information staff needed. Fire door problems and repeated incidents were not always identified or dealt with promptly.

    “Risks to people's health and wellbeing were not always appropriately assessed and monitored.” from the report
  • Staffing and training

    serious

    People and staff reported delays because there were not enough staff. Some staff training was out of date, and supervision did not always happen as the home's policy required.

    “Staff were not sufficiently supported in their role to access training to enable them to meet people's needs.” from the report
  • Meals

    needs fixing

    Mealtimes were inconsistent between the two units. People did not always have enough choice or receive the help they needed, including people on specialised diets.

    “Best practice was not being followed including a lack of choice and poor practice when supporting people with their meals.” from the report
  • Management oversight

    serious

    The home's checks had not found the problems identified by inspectors. Records were not always complete or reliable, and identified gaps were not always corrected quickly.

    “Governance systems had failed to identify and address the shortfalls found at inspection.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to medicines administration, as-needed medicine instructions and medicine records since the inspection?
  2. 02How many staff are now on duty on each shift, and how do you check that staffing levels match people's support needs?
  3. 03Which staff have completed training in catheter care, diabetes and other conditions affecting people at the home?
  4. 04How do you make sure care plans, risk assessments and daily records are accurate and available to staff?
  5. 05What has changed at mealtimes, especially for people who need help or a specialised diet?

This was an unannounced focused inspection prompted by concerns about medicines, staffing and management oversight; Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated, while the other key questions were not inspected in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2021

The Limes was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. It checked infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.

Inspectors found systems to isolate people with COVID-19 and good supplies of personal protective equipment. Staff had updated training and regular testing. The home was clean and well kept.

Visitors were restricted to essential visits at the time. A visitor process included temperature checks, hand disinfection and safety information.

The service was inspected but not rated. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. The other areas were not assessed in this inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • COVID-19 isolation

    There were systems to isolate people with COVID-19 and reduce the risk of infection spreading.

    “Systems were in place to isolate people with COVID-19 to minimise transmission.” from the report
  • Protective equipment and training

    PPE was readily available, and staff had updated training and regular testing during the pandemic.

    “Staff had received update training on how to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and were regularly tested” from the report
  • Cleaning

    Housekeeping staff were trained in infection control, with extra cleaning of frequently touched areas. Inspectors found the home clean and well kept.

    “We observed that the home was very clean and well kept.” from the report
  • Visitor controls

    A visitor process included temperature checks, hand disinfection and safety information.

    “A visitor's protocol was in place to ensure anyone entering the service was temperature tested, completed hand disinfection” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What infection-control arrangements are in place now for isolating someone with COVID-19 or another infection?
  2. 02How are staff trained and tested for infection prevention and control now?
  3. 03How is PPE supplied and checked across the home?
  4. 04What are the current rules for visiting, including checks and safety precautions?
  5. 05What arrangements are in place to prevent and manage an infection outbreak?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 2021 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of The Limes

5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. November 2022Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at The Limes →

  2. February 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at The Limes →

  3. December 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: OutstandingWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2017Goodstayed Good
    Effective: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. August 2015Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. February 2015Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. April 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of 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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.

“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
Beatrice N., about Rosemary H.
“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.”
Lucy K., about Emma H.
See live-in carers near East Riding of YorkshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.