CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hagley Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely and enough staff were available. Risks, accidents, fire safety and infection control were monitored.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained, meals supported people's dietary needs and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind, respectful interactions. People were offered choices, involved in care decisions and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's wishes, interests, health, diet and communication needs. The home offered activities, supported family contact and had a complaints procedure.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong leadership and governance systems. The management team carried out checks covering areas such as safety, infection control, medicines and pressure care.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care with effective leadership.
This was an unannounced inspection over 28 and 29 January 2020. Two inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a pharmacist. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean premises and suitable safeguarding arrangements. People received care based on their needs and choices.
People and relatives gave positive feedback. Staff were described as kind and caring, and inspectors saw respectful interactions. The home had systems to learn from incidents, respond to complaints and monitor the quality of care.
Safe care
Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm. Staffing, medicines, risk assessments and safety checks were in place.
“People were cared for by staff in a way that kept them safe and protected them from avoidable harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed respectful and compassionate interactions.
“We observed many respectful and compassionate interactions during the inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's wishes, interests, health, diet and communication needs. They were reviewed with input from people, families and professionals.
“Each person living at the home had a personalised plan of care that included information about their wishes, interests and hobbies, health diet and communication needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities, community trips and events for families and friends. It also worked to reduce loneliness and isolation.
“There was an activities co-ordinator employed and we saw in-house activities taking place throughout the inspection.” from the report
Strong management checks
The inspectors found that managers monitored the service through regular checks and acted when issues were identified.
“There were strong governance systems in place and the registered manager and provider had a good oversight of the daily running of the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's care needs before admission and after they move in?
- 02How do you use your staffing tool to make sure there are enough staff when residents' needs change?
- 03How would you support my relative's communication, dietary, mobility or dementia-related needs?
- 04What activities and community outings would be suitable for my relative?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews and decisions if someone cannot make a particular decision themselves?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home and covered all five CQC questions, with all five ratings remaining Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2020 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but night staffing and individual activities needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a doctor. They observed care, checked five care records and reviewed management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough experienced staff during the day, safe medicines management, kind and respectful care, suitable support with food and health needs, and systems for listening to feedback.
Staff raised concerns about night staffing. Management arranged an extra night worker by the end of the inspection. Inspectors also said the home needed to increase individual activities and opportunities for people.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Inspectors saw warm communication, privacy during personal care and support for people's choices.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. Care was person centred with people having good relationships with staff.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff, stored securely and recorded accurately. Inspectors found they were given to the right people at the right time.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines in line with their prescription.” from the report
Food and health support
People had a choice of freshly prepared food and received help with eating and drinking when needed. Staff also involved health professionals when concerns arose.
“People enjoyed the food and had the support they needed to enjoy their food and drinks safely.” from the report
Open management
People and staff said the manager was visible, approachable and willing to listen. The home gathered feedback and used checks to monitor care.
“People and staff felt that the registered manager and the provider were approachable and supportive.” from the report
Night staffing
seriousSome staff felt there were not always enough staff at night, particularly when several people were awake or needed two staff for personal care. An extra night worker had been added to the rota by the end of the inspection.
“However staff that we spoke with did not feel that there were sufficient staff during the night to always ensure people's safety.” from the report
More individual activities needed
needs fixingThe home offered group activities and was developing trips and hobbies. Inspectors said there should be more time and opportunities for people to take part in activities individually.
“We discussed with the activities coordinator and the registered manager the need for there to be an increase in individual opportunities for people.” from the report
- 01Has the additional night staff member remained on the rota, and how do you check that night staffing is enough when people need two staff for care?
- 02What changes have been made to increase individual activities and time spent with each person?
- 03Has the use of agency staff reduced as planned, and how do you make sure agency staff know people's needs?
- 04What difference has the enhanced dementia care programme made to people's care?
- 05How do people and relatives currently give feedback, and how are any actions tracked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions, five care records and management records reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 2017 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 Hagley Place
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014Inspected but not rated
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 May 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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.