CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hadrian House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe medicines management, suitable staffing, risk assessments and infection control. Safeguarding systems were in place, but follow-up records for referrals were not being maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff spoke positively about the manager. Audits, action plans and meetings were being used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and supportive management, with safeguarding records needing better follow-up.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 1 and 3 August 2023. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led, speaking with people, a relative, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines practices, risk assessments and infection control. People were supported to make choices, and visitors were welcomed without restrictions.
The manager and staff were described as supportive and approachable. Quality checks and team meetings had improved. However, the manager was not recording progress and updates after safeguarding referrals were made. The passenger lift was also not working during the inspection, although repairs were under way.
Safe medicines
Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff had training and competence checks for different types of medicines.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff with the training, skills and experience needed to meet people's needs. Recruitment records included the required checks.
“There were sufficient staff with the necessary training, skills and competence to support people's safety and meet their needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits and action plans to identify shortfalls and track improvements. Staff meetings were used to share information and learning.
“Where shortfalls were identified an action plan was developed.” from the report
Safeguarding follow-up
needs fixingThe manager did not record the progress and updates of safeguarding referrals after they were sent. The manager said a new record would be introduced.
“However, the manager did not record the progress and update of referrals once made.” from the report
Passenger lift
needs fixingThe passenger lift was not working during the inspection. People on the first floor were affected, although an external contractor was repairing it and the delay was outside the provider's control.
“People and a visiting relative spoke of the impact of the lift not working had for those on the first floor being confined.” from the report
- 01How are safeguarding referrals now recorded, monitored and followed through to completion?
- 02Has the passenger lift been repaired, and what arrangements are in place if it stops working again?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient at the busiest parts of the day?
- 04How are medicine competence checks kept up to date, including for insulin and other specialist medicines?
- 05How are people's views from monthly meetings turned into changes in care or daily life?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 2023 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, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and improvements after an earlier dip, with minor recording and décor issues.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 21 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They checked care records, medicines, health and safety records, and management audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, clean surroundings, suitable training, kind care and support tailored to people's needs.
The report says there had been a period when standards dropped during earlier management arrangements. The new registered manager had improved the service. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns at this inspection, although some medicines records had discrepancies and parts of the décor looked tired.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The home had filled its vacancies and no longer relied regularly on agency staff.
“At the time of this inspection, we found all vacancies had been recruited to and the service no longer needed to use agency staff on a regular basis.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated as individuals and supported with dignity, privacy and independence. Staff knew when to help and when to let people do things for themselves.
“During our visit we saw people being treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Improved activities
The range of activities had increased after a new activity co-ordinator started. People could take part in activities such as quizzes and craft work, and use a small shop.
“The new activity co-ordinator had set up a shop in the home to provide people with opportunities to buy items such as cards, sweets and toiletries.” from the report
Strong management improvement
Inspectors found that the new registered manager had raised standards and supported staff to work more effectively.
“Since then, and with the support of the provider; the registered manager had set the standard of care expected at the service, and supported staff to achieve this standard.” from the report
Some medicines recording discrepancies
minorA sample of medicines records was mostly correct, but inspectors found some discrepancies. These were addressed with the manager and staff during the inspection.
“Where discrepancies were found in recording, this was addressed with the manager and staff at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Earlier drop in standards
needs fixingPeople and relatives described a previous period when the quality of care had fallen during changes in management. Inspectors said the service had since returned to a Good standard.
“People and relatives told us that during the period when the previous registered manager had left, and interim management arrangements were in place, there had been a dip in the quality of service provided to people.” from the report
- 01How are medicines records checked now, and what was done to prevent further recording discrepancies?
- 02Has the planned redecoration of the tired areas and replacement of worn furniture been completed?
- 03What changes have been made to keep standards stable since the earlier drop in quality?
- 04How often are activities offered, and how are they matched to each person's interests and needs?
- 05How do you make sure there are enough permanent staff to meet residents' needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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 Hadrian House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 September 2012.
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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.