- Care home
Quebec Hall Limited
Assessment report published 22 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out this inspection on 08 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People who used the service were supported by enough staff who had the skills and training to support them safely. Staff were safely recruited and underwent an induction process. Staff were well supported by the management team. Some staff received additional training to enable them to administer medicines and had their competency to do this checked. Medicines were safely managed and, where people administered their own medicines, there were risk assessments in place for this.
Staff understood their responsibility to report and act on safeguarding concerns, should they suspect a person was at risk of abuse or experiencing abuse. The registered manager reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority safeguarding team and to CQC. However, we identified three instances where this had not taken place. People were not injured and had not come to harm, but best practice would have been to report any concerns. The registered manager acknowledged this and noted for future occasions.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. However, we identified one concern where there was no record of a capacity assessment for people sharing rooms. The provider acknowledged this and committed to addressing this as soon as possible. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
Risks were identified, mitigated and well monitored to ensure changes to risk assessments were not required. Infection control risks were well managed, with care staff having additional cleaning duties to supplement and heighten cleaning procedures. The service was clean and odour free. The environment was safe and many people were able to access all areas of the service independently. Equipment, such as hoists and stand-aids, was well maintained. Maintenance staff carried out regular safety checks to ensure systems were working correctly and the building remained in a good state of repair.
People’s needs were assessed prior to them coming to live at Quebec Hall and regularly reviewed. People’s needs relating to eating and drinking were well managed and staff were seen promoting additional drinks during a period of very hot weather. The service was kept reasonably cool and people were comfortable. People were provided with a nutritional diet with plenty of choice. Health needs were well monitored and appropriate referrals made when needed, to the falls team or speech and language therapists for example. People consented to their care and were given opportunities to feed back on all aspects of the service in surveys and meetings. The provider took note of people’s feedback and action followed.
Care was person centred. Staff were kind and relationships between staff and the people they were supporting and caring for, were good. Care was unhurried and the atmosphere was calm. Staff were very positive about the service, with one saying. ‘They are a family – it is about the relationships with people.’
There was good oversight by the registered manager and the general manager, with systems and processes in place to monitor all aspects of the service. The service planned to further improve this by introducing electronic systems soon. Staff were well supported with supervision sessions and staff meetings. There was a shared direction and culture based on Christian faith but not excluding those of other or no faith. People were supported and cared for whilst their independence was maintained as much as possible.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives spoke very positively about the service. People told us they felt safe. One person explained, ‘I feel safe. I am looked after and there are always staff here day and night. They come and check on me at night as well. I am just comfortable being here.’ Another person added, ‘I feel safe. Much better than if I lived on my own. I can ask for help and they will appear.’ People told us there were enough staff and they were well trained and skilled in their roles. One person said, ‘If you need help they come to you immediately. I have never had to wait. There always seems to be someone around.’
People told us they received their medicines on time and had any pain managed promptly. One person commented, ‘If you need some painkillers they are very quick to give those to you. They are very obliging.’ People had their stocks of medicines in their own rooms, although these had been removed during the hot weather to ensure they were kept at a safe temperature.
We observed warm relationships between staff and people using the service and lots of laughter. People told us they were comfortable with the staff and trusted them to ensure their dignity. We received very positive feedback from several people about how staff put them at ease during personal care. A typical comment was, ‘I feel comfortable with the staff when they help me. They shut the door and close the curtains. We have a laugh when they help me. They let me wash as much as I can myself.’
We observed a mealtime which, although not attended by many due to the heat, was a social occasion supported by staff who anticipated people’s needs and offered choices. People were positive about the food, although some people felt there could be more variety, although all agreed an alternative meal would be provided if the food was not to someone’s taste. One person explained. ‘They tell you in the morning what the meal is and you can always say no if you want something else.’ People remarked positively on the provision of ice lollies, extra drinks and ice cream in the hot weather. People’s health conditions were well managed. They were supported to attend appointments with healthcare professionals, including a GP or District Nurse, should they need them.
A range of activities was provided but some people commented there could be more to do. This was an issue the provider was aware of and had consulted people about. Plans were in place to increase the amount and type of activities. Staff had been given additional responsibilities for promoting activities. On the day of our inspection two people were giving a talk on the Victorian era and regular speakers attended the service. People told us they had ample opportunities to follow their faith and services and hymn singing sessions were provided throughout the week.