CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Halcyon Days
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Halcyon Days was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and enough staff during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak. They also asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found safe visiting arrangements, including visitor testing and alternative visits during the outbreak. Staff had suitable personal protective equipment, used it correctly and washed their hands often. The home was clean and well ventilated.
There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely and promptly. The management team checked staff practice and infection control, and completed actions promptly. The home was meeting the vaccination requirements in force at the time.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all aspects of care, so the report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Infection control
Staff were trained to use PPE safely, and PPE was readily available. Inspectors also found good hand hygiene and staff working in consistent areas where possible.
“Staff were trained in safe use of their personal protective equipment (PPE) which was readily available around the home.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs safely and promptly. The home tried to use the same agency staff for available shifts.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs safely and in a timely manner.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and well ventilated. The management team carried out regular checks and completed any actions promptly.
“People lived in a clean and well-ventilated environment.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had safety procedures for visitors, including testing. Alternative arrangements were provided during the COVID-19 outbreak.
“Safe visiting procedures were in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visitors tested and supported to visit if there is an infection outbreak?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough staff on every shift to meet residents' needs?
- 04How often are staff practice and infection control audited, and how are any actions followed up?
- 05What is the home's current overall CQC rating, given that this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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, August 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not consistently well-led and needed to improve records, training and quality checks.
Inspectors visited on 4 and 9 July 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines and management records.
People were generally safe and received kind, personalised care. Staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, people's privacy was respected and care plans were usually detailed and regularly reviewed.
The main weaknesses were in management. The home had no registered manager, some care records were not updated when needs changed, and quality checks did not reliably identify or deal with problems. There were also concerns about staff knowledge of nutrition and limited snacks for people needing a soft diet.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The report says the overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Risks such as falls and pressure wounds were assessed and managed.
“People felt safe at the service. Staff had received relevant training on how to safeguard people and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found complete medicines administration records, with stocks matching the records. Medicines were stored and managed safely.
“We checked people's medication administration records (MAR) and found these were complete with no errors or omissions.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them in a friendly and relaxed way. People's privacy and dignity were promoted.
“People told us that staff were friendly and respected their privacy.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, interests and preferences. Staff showed good knowledge of what mattered to each person.
“Care and support plans were individualised to reflect people's needs and included clear instructions for staff on how best to support people.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager. People and staff were unclear about who was managing the home and what the long-term plans were.
“The service did not have a registered manager in post.” from the report
Care records were not always updated
needs fixingSome records did not accurately reflect changes in people's needs. This could make it harder for staff to follow the right guidance.
“People's care records were not always accurately maintained.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits and monitoring systems were in place but did not reliably identify problems or ensure that actions were completed within reasonable times.
“This meant that although systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of care people received, they were not effectively applied.” from the report
Some activities were limited
minorSome people, particularly on one unit, had less stimulation while the home was waiting for a new activities worker to start.
“However this had led to a lack of some stimulation for some people, particularly on Kingfisher unit.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the plan for appointing or registering a manager?
- 02How do you make sure care records are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 03What action has been taken to improve staff training about nutrition, hydration and soft diets?
- 04How do you monitor people's food intake and weight, and how do you check that any actions are completed?
- 05What activities are now available for people on the unit where inspectors found less stimulation?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, with the report noting that the shorter format was used because the overall rating had not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 August 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 Halcyon Days
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 May 2017.
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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.