CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hanford Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were assessed and managed, medicines were given as prescribed, and call bells were answered promptly, although staffing could feel stretched at busy times.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on their assessed needs, with staff training and support from health professionals. Inspectors noted that bedroom doors did not yet have memory boxes and bathrooms lacked pictorial signs, which the manager said would be addressed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff respected privacy and dignity, involved people in decisions and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people could choose activities, meals and how they spent their time. The home supported relationships, faith, communication needs and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People and staff were positive about the manager and the home's atmosphere. However, quality assurance systems were not fully embedded, and checks on medicines, care plans and infection control were not consistently formalised.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home's leadership and quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were protected from abuse, received their medicines as prescribed, had enough trained staff and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors also found personalised care, activities and support to maintain health and relationships.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home's quality checks were not formal or consistent enough, especially checks on medicines, care plans and infection control. The manager introduced or obtained new audit documents after the inspection and said these would be used immediately.
The overall rating remained Good. The previous inspection, published on 8 August 2017, was also Good, but the well-led rating had fallen from Good to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and risks to people were assessed and reviewed. Inspectors found that concerns were investigated and learning was shared.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff protected privacy and dignity and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“People were always treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's preferences and supported them to choose how they spent their time. Activities were based on people's interests and included outings, faith activities and community links.
“There was a strong focus on supporting people to access activities that were inclusive and based on people's interests.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with health and social care professionals and made referrals when needed. People had access to support from several health professionals.
“The home worked closely with other professionals, such as the community nurse team and followed their advice to ensure people received effective care, in line with best practice.” from the report
Quality checks were not consistent
needs fixingThe home's systems for checking quality were not formal or fully embedded. This meant inspectors could not be sure that problems would always be identified and corrected promptly.
“Quality assurance checks were not always formalised and were not fully embedded in the service” from the report
Medicine audits were limited
needs fixingMedicine checks looked at stock levels but did not cover all aspects of safe administration, storage and disposal. The manager obtained a new audit template after the inspection.
“Audits of medicines consisted of a monthly check of stock levels and did not look at other aspects” from the report
Some dementia-friendly adaptations were unfinished
minorBedroom doors did not have memory boxes and bathrooms did not have pictorial signs. The manager said these would be addressed during completion works.
“People had not been given the opportunity to personalise their bedroom doors, for example with a memory box” from the report
- 01What new quality assurance checks are now in place, and how are you recording actions when a problem is found?
- 02How do you audit medicines beyond checking stock levels?
- 03Have the memory boxes on bedroom doors and pictorial bathroom signs now been completed?
- 04How do you adjust staffing when the home is busy, particularly in the morning?
- 05How will you show that infection control checks are being completed and followed up?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings were reviewed, with Well-led falling from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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, August 2017
Hanford Manor was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with night-time staffing still under review.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 4 July 2017. They spoke with five people living there, five relatives and members of staff. They also observed care, checked five care records and reviewed records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were given as prescribed, staff were trained and caring, and care plans reflected people's changing needs.
People were offered meal choices, support with healthcare, activities and opportunities to maintain relationships. Relatives could visit freely, and complaints were investigated. Some people were unsure whether there were enough staff at night, and the manager said this was being reviewed.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given individually, records were kept and staff had training and competency checks. Medicines were stored in locked trolleys.
“Medicines were administered as prescribed and they were stored safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, privacy and dignity.
“We observed respectful, kind interaction between staff and the people they supported.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's likes, dislikes and histories. Care plans were reviewed and activities were planned around individual interests.
“Staff knew people well and could describe their likes and dislikes.” from the report
Good management and improvement
The home had systems for checking quality and responding to feedback. The provider had invested in changes to the building and had created a quality manager role.
“Audits and reviews were completed to drive quality improvement.” from the report
Night-time staffing
needs fixingSome people were not sure there were enough staff at night. The manager said this was under review and planned to monitor waiting times through the new call bell system.
“Some people we spoke with said that they were not always sure that there were enough staff on at night-time.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty at night, and what did the review of night-time staffing conclude?
- 02How will you monitor call bell waiting times and share the results with residents and families?
- 03Which renovation work has been completed, and is any work still likely to disturb residents?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 05How are activities chosen for people who cannot easily express their preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home; it was the first inspection under this provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 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 Hanford Manor
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 July 2015.
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 Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.