CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hadleigh Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, admissions and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Hadleigh Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 14 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because the home had experienced a coronavirus outbreak. There were 20 people living in the home at the time.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment, shielding, social distancing, cleaning and outbreaks safely. The infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
The report also describes good communication with relatives about visiting changes. Staff were supported with personal protective equipment and weekly COVID-19 testing. The overall service and the Safe question were inspected but not rated.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements covered visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
“We were assured this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.” from the report
Communication with relatives
The provider and manager kept relatives informed about visiting changes during the pandemic and asked about testing to support future visits.
“Communication with relatives of people using the service was good.” from the report
Support for staff
Staff said they felt safe at work because they had access to protective equipment and weekly COVID-19 testing.
“Staff told us they felt safe coming to work, because they had good access to PPE, and were tested weekly for COVID-19” from the report
Testing and injections
People were supported with COVID-19 testing and seasonal preventative injections. Mental capacity decisions were assessed and made in people's best interests where needed.
“People living in the service were supported to have COVID 19 testing and seasonal preventative injections.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What has changed in your infection prevention and control arrangements since the inspection on 14 December 2020?
- 02How are relatives currently kept informed about visiting arrangements and any changes?
- 03How often are staff tested for COVID-19 now, and how is personal protective equipment supplied?
- 04What arrangements are in place to prevent and manage an infection outbreak?
- 05What were the home's ratings for care areas that this targeted inspection did not assess?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some management and record-keeping issues to address.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 15 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care records, recruitment files, training, fire safety and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care planning, kind staff and activities that reflected people's interests.
There were some issues. The home did not have a registered manager at the time. Planned staff supervision had not been consistent, one person's diet did not match their care plan, some corridor signs were missing and one complaint had not been fully resolved.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Call bells and requests for help were answered promptly, and rotas showed a stable staffing establishment.
“Staffing levels meant that staff were available to help and support people when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spoke calmly with people, protected their privacy and supported their choices and independence.
“We saw examples of caring and compassionate care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, interests and preferred ways of receiving care. People and relatives were involved in planning.
“Support plans described people's needs and how they wished to be cared for in a personalised way.” from the report
Activities and end of life care
People could join activities and these could be changed to suit their wishes. Records included people's decisions about end of life care.
“There was an activity plan in place which was a guide so that it could be changed on the day if people so wished.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager when inspectors visited. A new manager had been appointed and was seeking registration.
“The service did not have a registered manager.” from the report
Supervision was not consistent
needs fixingStaff said they could approach senior staff for support, but planned supervision had not been delivered consistently because of changes in senior staff.
“As there had been many changes in senior staff since the service opened the planned supervision had not been delivered consistently.” from the report
Some signs were missing
minorThe home was freshly decorated, but many corridors did not have signs to help people find their way. The service said this was being addressed.
“There was no signage in many of the corridors to direct people and we understood this was being addressed by the service.” from the report
One complaint was still open
needs fixingThe home had a complaints process and investigated complaints. However, inspectors were told that one recent complaint had not yet been fully resolved.
“We were informed that the service had not fully resolved the complaint as yet but were continuing to try to do so to the satisfaction of all parties.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager completed registration with the CQC, and who is legally responsible for running the home now?
- 02How often do staff receive supervision, and how do you check that this happens consistently?
- 03How do you check that each person's diet matches their current care plan at every meal?
- 04What happened to the recent complaint mentioned in the report, and has it now been fully resolved?
- 05Have the missing corridor signs been installed, and how do you help people find their way around the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, nursing care and all five CQC questions, with all five areas rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 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 Hadleigh Nursing Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.