CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Haddon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and controlling infection. They found arrangements for testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and safe admissions.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place.
The home supports up to six people under 65 with mental health issues, learning disabilities or autism. Five people lived there when inspectors visited.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 1 April 2021. Inspectors looked at how the home was preventing and controlling coronavirus infection.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing, admissions and the infection control policy. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safe visiting
Visitors were checked for symptoms and required to take a lateral flow test. A visiting pod was also available for relatives.
“Visitors were screened for symptoms of Covid-19 and were required to complete a lateral flow test on their arrival” from the report
Family contact
The home helped people stay in touch with important people in their lives, including through virtual contact.
“The provider had purchased devices to enable people to have virtual contact with family members.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Inspectors found enough personal protective equipment, staff using it in line with guidance, and regular testing for people and staff.
“Ample stocks of PPE were available. Staff were wearing PPE in line with guidance.” from the report
Cleaning and training
Cleaning schedules had been increased and staff had infection prevention and control training, including how to use protective equipment.
“Cleaning schedules had been increased to monitor cleanliness of the environment.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are visitors still screened and asked to complete a lateral flow test before visiting?
- 02How are people currently supported to keep in contact with family and other important people?
- 03Is the visiting pod still available, and what visiting arrangements apply now?
- 04How often are people living here and staff tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 05How do you make sure there are enough personal protective equipment supplies and that staff use them safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, person-centred care and good management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 11 February 2019. One inspector spoke with four of the five people living at the home, staff and the manager. Records about care, medicines, staffing, training, safety and management were also checked.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, personalised care plans, good support with health and food, and positive relationships between people and staff.
The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published in August 2016. The report says the home met the characteristics of a Good rating in all areas.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse. Risks were assessed and reviewed when people's needs changed.
“All people we spoke with told us they felt safe in the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's interests, wishes and longer-term plans. Staff supported people to choose activities and decide how they wanted to be cared for.
“Care and support plans were focussed and individualised with details of interests, wishes and longer-term plans for each person.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described positive relationships with staff. Staff supported privacy, personal choices, cultural needs and independence.
“People commented positively about the support they received from staff.” from the report
Good support with daily life
People were supported to plan and cook meals, attend healthcare appointments and use community services. Their medicines were given safely.
“People were supported by staff to plan and cook their own meals.” from the report
Good leadership and checks
The provider and manager used audits, staff meetings and feedback to monitor care and look for improvements. Staff felt able to raise issues.
“The provider had a system of checks and audits in place that were used by the registered manager to look at all aspects of the home” from the report
The building pre-dated later guidance
minorThe home was not originally designed in line with later guidance about choice, independence and inclusion. Inspectors said people were nevertheless receiving choice, independence and community support.
“The care service had not originally been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance.” from the report
Communication improvements were planned
minorThe manager intended to develop communication systems so information could be accessed by everyone who might use the home in future. The report does not say that this work was complete.
“The registered manager advised of plans to develop communication systems so that information could be accessed by all people who might use the service in the future.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the planned communication systems, and how will they support people with different communication needs?
- 02How do you make sure staffing remains consistent when staff are absent or on leave?
- 03How are people supported to build independence and prepare for possible moves into supported living?
- 04How are 'as needed' medicines agreed, recorded and reviewed?
- 05If someone needs end of life care, how would their care plan and discussions with them and others be arranged?
This was a planned unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care provided, and it considered all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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 Haddon House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 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.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 December 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.