- Care home
Foxby Hill Care Home
Assessment report published 21 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 28 29 July 2026. Foxby Hill Care Home is a care home for older people, people living with dementia, mental health or physical disabilities. We completed this assessment in response to information and concerns received. At the time of this assessment 37 people lived at the service. We found the provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to consent, safe care and treatment, safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment, meeting nutritional and hydration needs, and good governance.
The provider did not have effective systems in place to ensure responsive learning from incidents. People were not always fully protected from risks associated with choking, burns and damage to their skin. The provider did not always follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and systems to track and monitor Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were not always effective. The provider did not always detect and control environment risks and medicines management was not always effective at identifying and minimising risk. The service supported people with safe transitions into the service.
Risk assessments did not fully explore risks associated with people's care and treatment. Mealtimes were not appropriate to promote good nutrition, and people did not have access to fresh fruit, vegetables or salads. Staff did not always work effectively to ensure people’s daily needs were met. Staff mostly demonstrated care and compassion for the people they supported. However, systems of care did not always promote people to live healthier lives. Where people lacked mental capacity, assessments were not in place to ensure the provider understood how best to support them with decision making.
The service lacked consistent leadership. Staff mostly described a positive workplace culture, but some staff stated the lack of consistent leadership made things difficult. Staff did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Quality assurance and oversight processes were not always effective. The service was not always forth coming with identifying and escalating concerns of people’s deteriorating health and was sometimes resistant to working with other services. Oversight systems were not effective at ensuring timely improvement.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with people living at the care home and their relatives to gain feedback. We spent time communal area, including dining areas during lunch service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspections (SOFI) to help us make a judgment on people’s well-being.
People’s relatives told us they were well supported when moving to the service. Assessment processes were in place to ensure people’s needs were identified. However, these were not always thorough, and some people’s needs were not fully explored. This meant people’s care plans were not always up-to-date or accurate to ensure they received continuity of care. People were not always kept safe through effective risk management and safeguarding procedures. However, most people indicated they felt safe and received the care they needed.
People were sometimes kept waiting for their meals and told us they felt hungry. The meals provided did not contain fresh fruit or vegetables and some people were unhappy with the quality of the food.
People were supported to engage in life enriching activities such as games, visiting entertainers, and trips into their local community. People and their relatives spoke positively about the activities staff and options available for things to do.
People were not always protected by effective governance. The provider’s systems and processes for ensuring quality of care were not always effective. This meant people living at the service did not always receive the best possible experience. Despite our findings, most people and their relatives indicated they felt satisfied with leadership at the service.