CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old Rectory - Hevingham
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, including visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing, social distancing, cleaning and outbreak management. A schedule for extra cleaning of high-touch points was not in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted support for family contact and activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although activities and visits had been adapted during the pandemic.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
The Old Rectory - Hevingham was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control with a cleaning-record gap.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than the full quality of care.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, admissions, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning were being managed safely. People’s COVID-19 risks had been assessed and planned for.
The home supported family contact through outdoor visits, phone calls and video calls. It also adapted outings and provided communal and outdoor space for activities.
The inspection was not rated. Inspectors found that there was no cleaning schedule for extra cleaning of high-touch points, and the registered manager said a schedule would be introduced.
Family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives through visits, phone calls and video calls.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their family.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that visitors were protected from catching and spreading infections.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
People living in the home and staff took part in the testing programme. Inspectors were also assured that protective equipment was used safely.
“The people living in the service and staff took part in the testing programme and were tested at the intervals stipulated by government guidelines.” from the report
Adapted activities
The home adapted outings and provided communal and outdoor areas where people could take part in activities while maintaining social distancing.
“There were large communal areas in the service so people could maintain social distancing and enjoy time together participating in activities such as music groups.” from the report
No high-touch cleaning schedule
minorA schedule was not in place for the additional cleaning of high-touch points. The registered manager said one would be introduced.
“A cleaning schedule was not in place for the additional cleaning carried out of the high-touch points within the home.” from the report
- 01Has the schedule for additional cleaning of high-touch points now been introduced?
- 02How is the extra cleaning of high-touch points recorded and checked?
- 03How are people’s individual COVID-19 risks assessed and kept up to date?
- 04How are testing and protective equipment managed for people living in the home and staff?
- 05How can residents keep in contact with their families and take part in activities?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a few records and risk checks needing improvement.
This was a planned inspection of a small care home for up to nine people with learning disabilities or autism. At the visit, nine people lived there. One inspector reviewed records, observed care, and spoke with people, staff, relatives and a social care professional.
Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices. Staff knew people well, supported health needs, managed medicines safely and helped people enjoy activities, outings and their hobbies.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It had also been rated Good in all areas at the previous inspection in September 2016.
Kind and understanding staff
People and relatives described staff as compassionate, patient and understanding. Inspectors saw that staff knew people very well and supported them as individuals.
“People were always treated with the utmost kindness and understanding, and were positive about the staff's caring attitude.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was planned around each person's physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Staff supported people to make choices and live as independently as possible.
“People received a highly personalised package of care which not only met their needs and preferences, it meant they were able to live as full and independent a life as possible.” from the report
Activities and independence
People had access to outings, hobbies and activities such as bowling, swimming, walking and visiting different places. Staff also supported people to spend their time as they wished.
“There continued to be a range of activities people were involved in.” from the report
Good health support
Staff followed advice from health professionals and encouraged people to attend health checks and appointments. They also supported people with special diets and drinks.
“People were supported to maintain good health and were referred to appropriate health professionals as required.” from the report
Legionella risk assessment
needs fixingThe home carried out yearly legionella checks but did not have a full, comprehensive risk assessment at the time of inspection. The manager said this would be arranged after the inspection.
“Although there had been yearly legionella checks, the service did not have a full comprehensive risk assessment in place.” from the report
Medicine storage records
needs fixingThe medicine store was kept cool, but daily temperature records were missing. The manager put this recording system in place immediately.
“The store room for medicines was kept cool, however there were no records of daily temperatures.” from the report
Formal checks were not always recorded
minorThe manager had good practical oversight, but some quality, safety and competency checks were not formally recorded.
“Although there were not always formally recorded checks in place, the registered manager clearly had a good oversight of the service and the staff.” from the report
- 01Can you show us how daily medicine storage temperatures are now recorded?
- 02Has the full legionella risk assessment mentioned in the report been completed, and when was it last reviewed?
- 03Which health and safety, medicine and staff competency checks are formally recorded now?
- 04How will you involve our relative in their care choices and reviews?
- 05What activities and outings would be available for our relative based on their interests?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 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 The Old Rectory - Hevingham
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.