You are here

Ingham Old Hall Care Home Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at Ingham Old Hall Care Home using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 24 August 2017

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of Ingham Old Hall Care Home on 3 and 4 May 2017. Two breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, a warning notice was served in relation to the management of medicines.

We undertook this focused inspection in July 2017 to check that the service had met the warning notice and to see whether they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the warning notice. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Ingham Old Hall Care Home on our website at

Ingham Old Hall Care Home provides care and support for to up to 25 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is a converted period building, over two floors, set in extensive grounds. Some rooms have en suite facilities. At the time of this inspection, there were 23 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection carried out in May 2017, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements in the management of medicines. At this inspection we found that these actions had been completed although a period of sustained improvement is required in order for us to have confidence that these changes have been imbedded into everyday practice.

Medicine management audits had been introduced since our last inspection and these had helped to ensure people received their medicines safely and as the prescriber had intended.

Staff had received up to date training in medicine administration and handling and their competency to do so had been assessed.

Frequent audits had helped staff to account for medicines which we found to be mostly accurate. However, whilst this had improved since our last inspection, we found some minor numerical discrepancies in records for the receipt of medicines.

Supporting information for medicines administration had also improved which further assisted in people receiving their medicines safely. This included the recording of personal information about people’s medicine administration, the safe handling of eye drops, guidance for staff on medicines taken on an ‘as required’ basis and records relating to pain-relieving skin patches.

At this inspection, we concluded that sufficient improvements had been made by the service and they were no longer in breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 24 August 2017

We found that action had been taken to improve medicines administration and management.

We could not improve the rating for safe from requires improvement because to do so requires consistent good practice over time. We will check this during our next planned comprehensive inspection.



Updated 20 June 2017

The service was effective.

Full compliance with the MCA was not consistently demonstrated by the service.

There were enough trained and supported staff to meet the needs of those that used the service.

People’s nutritional and healthcare needs were met in a person centred manner.



Updated 20 June 2017

The service was caring.

Staff demonstrated a kind, empathetic and patient approach to those that used the service and others.

People’s dignity, privacy and confidentiality was respected and maintained. Staff encouraged and supported people’s choices and independence.

Staff sought consent to deliver care although records did not clearly demonstrate that people had been involved in the planning of their care.



Updated 20 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care that was individual to them and met their personal needs.

Social and leisure needs were met and people were happy with the level of stimulation they received.

There was a complaints policy in place should people raise any concerns.


Requires improvement

Updated 20 June 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

The systems the provider had in place to assess, monitor and improve the service were not fully effective.

The management team were visible and the provider supportive.

Staff worked well as a team and respected their colleagues abilities in providing a caring and considerate service.