CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hadfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention measures, including screening, PPE, testing, hygiene and vaccination. They were only somewhat assured that visits followed current guidance.
- 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, but visiting time was restricted against government guidance.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures. They gave the home 48 hours' notice.
Inspectors found several good infection control measures. These included visitor screening, clear signs, enough protective equipment, staff training, regular COVID-19 testing and full vaccination of staff and residents.
The main shortfall was visiting. People were not always allowed to spend as much time with relatives or friends as government guidance allowed. The provider said this would be corrected, and CQC said it would check that visiting had improved.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. Safe was also inspected but not rated. The other four areas were not assessed in this inspection.
Visitor screening
Essential visitors had health screening, temperature checks, lateral flow test evidence and vaccination checks.
“A robust screening process was in place for all essential visitors to the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was plenty of protective equipment, and inspectors saw staff using it correctly. Staff had also completed infection control and hand-washing training.
“There was plenty of PPE available and we saw this being correctly used by staff.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
The home was carrying out regular COVID-19 testing. Staff and residents were fully vaccinated at the time of the inspection.
“The home was accessing regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents.” from the report
Restricted visiting time
needs fixingPeople were not always allowed to spend as much time with relatives or friends as government guidance allowed. The provider said future visits would follow the guidance.
“We found the service was limiting the amount of time people were allowed to spend with their relative or friend when they visited them.” from the report
- 01How much time can residents now spend with relatives and friends during visits?
- 02What changes were made after CQC said visiting did not follow government guidance?
- 03How do you currently screen essential visitors and check testing or vaccination requirements?
- 04How are infection outbreaks prevented and managed now?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2022 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found significant improvements and kind, safe care, with two record-keeping issues addressed during the inspection.
The inspection took place on 6 and 7 November 2018. The first day was unannounced. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked the building, care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans, good support with food and health needs, and respectful relationships.
This was a substantial improvement from the previous inspection in October 2017, when the home was rated Requires Improvement and breached four regulations. At this inspection, those areas had improved and the home was meeting the regulations. Inspectors recommended more detailed recording of thickeners and a written legionella risk assessment. Both actions were started or completed during the inspection.
Kind relationships
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions and staff supporting people's dignity and choices.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, records matched stocks and administration was observed to be safe. Instructions for medicines given when needed were clear.
“Medicines were stored and managed safely.” from the report
Suitable staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision.
“Staffing levels ensured a high standard of support was provided and recruitment was safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and strengths. They were reviewed and updated when needs changed, with activities available in the home and community.
“Each person had a care plan that was tailored to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its quality checks since the previous inspection. The manager recorded actions and reviewed them regularly.
“The service had sustained a positive trajectory of improvement.” from the report
Thickener records
needs fixingInspectors wanted records of thickeners, used to change the consistency of drinks, to contain more detail. New paperwork was put in place during the inspection.
“We recommended that the service review the recording of thickeners, used to adapt the consistency of fluids, to ensure that records contained more detail.” from the report
Legionella assessment
needs fixingThe home had water checks and sampling, but did not yet have a formal written legionella risk assessment. The provider had started this process before the inspection ended.
“We recommended that the provider review best practice in relation to formally assessing the risks of legionella and carry out a written risk assessment.” from the report
- 01How are thickened drinks recorded now, and how do you check that the records are complete?
- 02Has the formal written legionella risk assessment been completed, and when was it last reviewed?
- 03How would you assess and support my relative's dementia, mental health, nutrition and hydration needs?
- 04What activities are available, and how do you match them to each person's interests and abilities?
- 05How will you keep me informed about changes in my relative's health or any incidents?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home; the first day was unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 2018 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 Hadfield House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Oldham
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 £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.