• Care Home
  • Care home

Highmarket House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

North Bar Place, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX16 0TD (01295) 297689

Provided and run by:
Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd

Important:

This care home is run by two companies: Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd and Care UK Care Services Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 04 June 2025 to 25 June 2025.The service is a residential care home providing support to older people some of whom are living with dementia. The accommodation for people is spread over three floors. Each person’s room had en-suite facilities. People had access to a range of seating areas both inside and in a garden area. At the time of the inspection 64 people were living at Highmarket House.

Highmarket House has 2 registered providers meaning both legal entities are responsible for this service. The service was last inspected in May 2018, where it was rated Good. At this inspection, the overall rating has changed to requires improvement. The service was in breach of 3 legal regulations, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing. The provider was required to send us an action plan telling us how they would improve and by when.

The provider’s systems and processes did not always identify the concerns we found during our inspection and therefore failed to drive improvement. The provider was very responsive during the inspection and put new systems and processes in place to mitigate the risks to people. Records of people’s needs and the support they were provided were not always accurate, complete. Risks were not always managed; risk assessments were not available for staff regarding use of hot food trolleys, although this was rectified, it had put people at risk.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection as there was a lack of sanitiser in the building and poor fridge and food management.

People’s medicines were safely stored and administered and where people required external professional input into their care this was sought and provided.

The provider had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. The registered manager and provider maintain good-quality care.

The provider had safeguarding processes in place and people could raise concerns. People felt safe. Before people came to live at the home, their care and support needs were assessed to ensure these could be met appropriately. Consent to care and treatment was gained lawfully.

The home was well maintained, clean and homely.

Governance systems had not identified or addressed areas for improvement.

People were supported to access input from healthcare professionals when they needed it. Managers and staff worked well with other professionals to achieve good outcomes for people.

Incidents were reported and managed well to protect people from harm. Recruitment systems were effective in ensuring new staff were suitable and safe to work in a care setting. There was mixed feedback regarding there being sufficient numbers of staff, a dependency tool was used to calculate the numbers of staff required, however some staff stated that there was a lack of staff sometimes meaning that peoples care was compromised. People and their relatives stated that they thought staff numbers were too low on occasions which has affected the ability of staff to provide care in a timely manner.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity when providing care. People were able to choose how they spent their time, and their preferences were known and respected by staff. People’s friends and families were made welcome when they visited and encouraged to become involved in the life of the home. The home had a much appreciated full and varied activity schedule, individual preferences were also taken into account and personal wishes actioned by the home.

People knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. People received fair and equal care and treatment and were involved in planning their care. The service supported staff wellbeing.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

 

17 December 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Highmarket House accommodates up to 73 people in one adapted building. The service supports older

people and younger adults with a range of conditions and includes support for people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 38 people using the service.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Entry to the building was well managed, visitors temperatures were taken and identities recorded.

The management of waste PPE (personal protective equipment) was safe and well organised.

Robust cleaning schedules were clearly displayed for staff and conducted by an excellent housekeeping team.

We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.

The provider worked closely with the registered manager to ensure safety of people living at the service.

They would only allow a new admission after a confirmed negative result of the Covid-19 test of a person.

For people living with dementia, social distancing was difficult. However, staff had taken steps that supported people with social distancing where ever possible.

The management were aware of zoning guidelines and had implemented them effectively where practicable.

The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the vetted

supplier ensured it complied with the quality standards. Staff had infection control training and understood the correct donning and doffing procedure.

People were supported by a stable and committed team of staff whom they knew well. This helped people to recognize the individual staff with the need to wear face masks.

Staff were well supported and praised the management team, comments included; "We are looked after and supported by the management.”

The provider considered risks and impact of the inspection on the individual staff members, this included around their health conditions as well as their caring responsibilities.

Regular testing for Covid-19 had recently been introduced for both people living at the service and the staff.

There was a comprehensive contingency plan what to do in case of an outbreak and this plan had been successfully implemented.

The provider ensured people's relatives were able to get in touch with people, for example by using

technology.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

14 May 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 14 May 2018 and was unannounced. Highmarket House is a newly registered purpose built residential care home. This was our first inspection of the service and we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Highmarket House accommodates up to 73 people in one adapted building. The service supports older people and younger adults with a range of conditions and includes support for people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people using the service.

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.

Throughout the inspection there was a cheerful, relaxed atmosphere. We saw many kind and caring interactions which valued people as unique individuals. The registered manager led by example, promoting a positive, person-centred culture. Staff knew people well and had developed positive relationships.

People enjoyed a range of activities both inside and outside the service. Staff used their knowledge of people's life histories and likes to ensure activities met their individual needs.

Staff were well supported and felt valued. Staff completed a range of training and development activities to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received food and drink to meet their dietary needs and made choices from a varied menu. Where people were at risk of malnutrition this was identified and steps taken to minimise the risk.

Care plans were person-centred and gave clear guidance to staff in how people wished their care needs to be met. Care plans were developed with people and relevant others to identify how people wished their care needs to be met. The service was responsive to people's changing needs.

Risks to people were assessed and there were plans in place to manage the risks. Medicines were managed safely and staff responsible for administering medicines were trained and their competencies regularly assessed.

The registered manager ensured there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend chatting with people and time to take them out.