CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hadley House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding arrangements, risk assessments, medicines systems, fire safety checks and infection control arrangements. Two missing window restrictors were identified and fitted promptly after the first visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health and nutritional needs were assessed and monitored. Staff had completed induction and training, and the home worked with healthcare professionals and followed mental capacity and DoLS arrangements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said they were treated with respect and dignity. Inspectors saw staff being helpful and attentive, although some staff did not engage people in conversation during the first visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were tailored to people's medical, mental health, cultural and religious needs. Activities were available, but one person felt there were not enough, so the manager agreed to review the programme.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and care professionals expressed confidence in the management. The home used regular checks, audits, meetings and surveys to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Hadley House Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful care, with some issues around staffing at weekends and activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 and 31 October 2018. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, a relative, care workers and healthcare professionals. The inspector also observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, the building and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable arrangements for safeguarding, medicines, staffing, fire safety and infection control. People received healthcare support, nutritious food and care plans that reflected their needs and preferences.
Inspectors also found respectful care, activities, cultural and religious support, prompt responses to complaints and regular checks on the quality of care. The home remained Good, the same overall rating as at the previous comprehensive inspection on 17 March 2016.
Medication and risk management
Inspectors found completed medicines records and risk assessments covering issues such as falls, pressure sores and the safety of the building.
“There were no unexplained gaps. This indicated that people had been given their prescribed medicines.” from the report
Respectful care
People said staff treated them with dignity. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy by knocking before entering bedrooms and closing doors and curtains during personal care.
“Care workers respected the privacy of people. We observed that they knocked on people's bedroom doors and waited for the person to respond before entering.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans included people's health needs, preferences, activities and cultural and religious needs. People and their representatives were involved in planning care.
“People and their representatives were involved in planning their care and support.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found that staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
“Care workers had received a comprehensive induction and training programme.” from the report
Responsive management
Complaints were recorded and answered promptly. The home also held meetings and used audits and surveys to check the quality of care.
“We noted that complaints recorded had been promptly responded to.” from the report
Weekend staffing
needs fixingOne person said there were not enough care workers at weekends. The manager said an additional care worker would be provided at weekends.
“One person informed us that at weekends there were insufficient staff as there were less care workers on duty.” from the report
Activities
needs fixingActivities were available, but one person felt there were not enough. The manager agreed to review the activities programme.
“One person stated that there were insufficient activities for people.” from the report
Window safety
needs fixingTwo ground-floor rooms did not have window restrictors when first checked. These were fitted promptly after the first visit.
“We however, noted that window restrictors had not been fitted to two rooms on the ground floor.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels at weekends, and how do you respond if people's needs increase?
- 02What changes were made to the activities programme after the inspection?
- 03How do you make sure staff spend time talking with people during personal care?
- 04Have all window safety checks and other building safety checks been completed since the inspection?
- 05How are care plans reviewed with residents and their relatives?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service covering all five key questions, including care, premises, records, staffing and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 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 Hadley House Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 June 2014.
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 Harrow
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 £1,270 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.