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 about most infection prevention measures, including PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak management. They were only somewhat assured about visitor safety because the required checks were not seen.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about most infection control measures, but visitor checks were not seen during the visit.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak. The inspection took place on 19 January 2021, although the report header also refers to 20 January 2021.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, supporting testing, managing possible outbreaks, and keeping the building clean. Staff were tested when arriving for shifts, and frequently touched areas were cleaned more often.
The home had arrangements for essential visits, including a garden visiting area and a booking system for when visits resumed. However, inspectors were only somewhat assured about visitor safety because the required health questionnaire and temperature check were not seen during the visit.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of all five areas of care, so it does not provide an overall Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Testing arrangements
Staff were tested when they arrived at the home before starting their shifts.
“Staff were all being tested on arrival at the service to ensure they were safe to continue with their shift.” from the report
Clean surroundings
The building was clean and uncluttered. A staff member was responsible for cleaning frequently touched areas each day.
“The building was clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Visit planning
The home had a garden area for visits and a booking system for when visits could resume.
“Although visits had been paused at the time of our inspection, there was a booking system in place so that relatives and friends could book appointments to visit when visits resume.” from the report
Visitor safety checks not observed
needs fixingThe home's policy required visitors to complete a health questionnaire and temperature check, but the inspector did not see these checks during the visit.
“This is because they had a policy in place which asked them to complete a health questionnaire and a temperature check with each visitor, the inspector did not experience this during their visit.” from the report
- 01How are visitor health questionnaires and temperature checks carried out now?
- 02How do you record visitor checks and follow up any concerns?
- 03How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and who is responsible for checking this?
- 04What testing arrangements are currently in place for staff and people living at the home?
- 05What arrangements are available for visits if visiting restrictions are introduced again?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with only Safe inspected and not rated; the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 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, August 2019
Haddon House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the home larger than current best practice guidance.
This was the home's first CQC inspection. It was an unannounced visit on 18 July 2019. One inspector spoke with four people, six staff members and two visiting professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines, training and management records.
The inspectors found that people were safe and supported by enough staff. Medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, and the home was clean. Staff were kind, respected privacy and dignity, and encouraged people to make choices and become more independent.
Care was personalised and reviewed regularly. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, relationships and communication. The home worked with other professionals and used audits and feedback to monitor its service.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the home was larger than current best practice guidance, but its design and approach reduced any negative impact. No restrictive intervention practices were used.
Kind and respectful staff
People appeared happy and comfortable with staff. Staff knew people's preferences and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff were kind and caring and knew each person well.” from the report
Personalised support
Each person had a support plan based on their choices and needs. People and their keyworkers reviewed plans at least monthly.
“Each person had a person-centred support plan, which detailed their preferences about the way they wanted staff to give them care and support.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Risks were assessed in a personalised way, and medicines were stored, given and audited safely.
“Staff managed medicines safely and gave people their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Promoting independence and inclusion
People were supported to take part in activities, use local services, maintain relationships and develop everyday skills.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Good staff support and leadership
Staff received training, supervision and support. Managers used audits and feedback to monitor quality and identify improvements.
“The registered manager completed monthly audits across all areas of the service to monitor the quality of the service being delivered.” from the report
Larger than current best practice guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to 15 people and 14 people were living there. Inspectors said this was larger than current best practice guidance, although the building design and way of working reduced any negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs and preferences?
- 02How do you review and update each person's support plan, and how would our family be involved?
- 03How do you make sure people can develop independence and take part in activities outside the home?
- 04How does the size of the home affect daily life, privacy and individual attention?
- 05How would you respond if my relative or our family raised a complaint or safeguarding concern?
This was the home's first inspection and covered all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 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
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 July 2018.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Peterborough
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 £980 to £1,370 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I honestly feel lucky to have found her and have already booked her for another visit.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.