CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Haddon House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines management. The home was generally clean, although some damaged or rusty items needed attention.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, preferences and dietary requirements were assessed and supported. Staff training was appropriate, but supervision sessions had not been delivered in line with the provider's policy.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be patient, kind and respectful. People were supported to express choices and relatives spoke positively about the care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records reflected people's needs and preferences, and relatives were involved in care plan reviews. Activities were provided and complaints were acted on.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager used audits and action plans to monitor the service. Relatives and staff were involved, although some relatives did not know about meetings or receive notes from them.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but noted some environmental and mealtime improvements.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection on 5 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and other professionals. They observed care, looked at records and checked how the home was managed.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans and kind interactions. People had access to healthcare, food and activities that met their needs.
There were some areas to improve. Inspectors found a rusty bath seat, a damaged door and a kitchen unit needing attention. Mealtimes were not always as focused or dignified as they could be, and staff supervision had not followed the provider's policy. The manager said these issues were being addressed.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels supported people's needs and allowed staff time to interact positively with them.
“People were supported by enough staff to ensure their needs were met, and to engage with people in a positive and meaningful way.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored appropriately and electronic records accurately showed when medicines had been given.
“People's medicines were managed in a safe way and administered as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and understanding, explained care interventions and supported people to make choices.
“We observed staff interacting with people and saw they were patient and understanding.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home provided activities based on people's interests, and inspectors saw people enjoying meaningful activities.
“We observed activities being provided during our inspection and found they were meaningful and people enjoyed taking part in them.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager carried out audits and used action plans when concerns were found.
“The registered manager conducted a series of audits to ensure the service was operating effectively.” from the report
Some environmental repairs needed
needs fixingInspectors found a bath seat beginning to rust, a damaged door and a kitchen unit needing attention. The manager said these matters were on the home's development plan.
“However, we saw a bath seat which had started to rust, a door which was damaged and a kitchen unit which required attention.” from the report
Mealtimes could be improved
needs fixingSome people appeared to struggle with the food presented. Items on tables caused distractions, and puddings were left to become cold while people finished their main course.
“We also saw that in both areas, puddings were left going cold while people were finishing eating their main course.” from the report
Supervision was not always on time
needs fixingStaff supervision sessions had not been delivered in line with the provider's policy. The manager had identified this and started a plan to resolve it.
“However, supervision sessions had not been delivered in line with the providers policy.” from the report
Some relatives missed meeting information
minorAlthough relatives' meetings were considered useful by those attending, some family members did not know about them and had not received notes.
“Some family members told us they did not know about the meetings and had not received any notes from them.” from the report
- 01Have the rusty bath seat, damaged door and kitchen unit now been repaired or replaced?
- 02What changes have been made to make mealtimes less distracting and to ensure food is served at the right temperature?
- 03How are staff supervision sessions now being monitored against the provider's policy?
- 04How will relatives be told about meetings and given copies of the notes?
- 05How will you involve our family member in care plan reviews and decisions about their daily care?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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 Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 2011.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.