CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hannahwood Mews
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing levels met people's assessed needs, and medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments, specialist staff training and access to nursing, therapy and other health professionals. Staff supported nutrition, communication and decision-making appropriately.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and committed. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions and supported to maintain family relationships.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was highly personalised and helped people take part in activities, develop skills, build confidence and stay involved in their local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had clear values, a stable staff team and regular audits. People's, relatives' and staff views were gathered and used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Hannahwood Mews was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care and exceptionally responsive support, with the home larger than current best-practice guidance.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 7 October 2019. One inspector and one Expert by Experience spent time with six people, spoke with 11 staff and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home supported 10 younger adults with significant physical disabilities and communication, sensory and learning disabilities. Inspectors found that risks were managed well, medicines were given safely, staff were trained and people received kind and respectful care.
Responsive care was rated Outstanding. People had highly personalised support, many activities and strong links with their local community. The other four areas, Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led, were rated Good.
The overall Good rating means the service met the standards inspectors checked. The previous overall rating was also Good, published in May 2017, while Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding.
Highly personalised support
Care plans were very detailed and tailored to people's communication, health, emotional and social needs. Staff adapted support to help people achieve their own goals.
“People received extremely personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Active community life
People took part in many activities, outings and community events. Staff helped people build confidence, learn skills and maintain relationships.
“People had lots of opportunities to meet up with other young adults who lived in other parts of the Dame Hannah community.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were understood and managed well. Medicines records were complete and staff administering medicines had their competence checked.
“People received their medicines when they should. Medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well, respected their choices and communication methods, and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People received compassionate support from a kind, committed and caring staff team.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to 14 people and was larger than current best-practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and location helped reduce any negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How would you adapt the detailed care plan and communication support for my relative's particular needs?
- 02What activities, outings and community links are available, and how would my relative choose and take part in them?
- 03How would you provide one-to-one support during the day and two-to-one support for moving, if my relative needed it?
- 04How do you check that medicines, risks and staff competence remain safely managed?
- 05How does the size and layout of the home affect my relative's privacy, independence and time in the wider community?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five CQC questions rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Hannahwood Mews was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some staffing and activity issues.
This was the home’s first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 17 March 2017. The inspector spoke with people living there, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked medicines, meals, care plans, risk assessments and staff recruitment records.
The home supported eight young adults with significant physical disabilities and complex health, communication and learning needs. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs, safe medicines systems, detailed care planning and staff who understood people well. People were supported to make choices using communication methods suited to them.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful care. People had access to activities at the home, on the wider site and in the community. Relatives were involved in care planning and felt able to raise concerns. The home had effective systems for checking quality and improving the service.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service met the required standards at the time of this inspection. It does not describe how the home is performing now.
Kind and respectful care
Relatives and healthcare professionals spoke very highly of staff. Inspectors observed caring interactions and found that staff knew people’s needs and preferences.
“Every relative and healthcare professional we spoke with expressed how impressed they were with the exceptionally caring nature of the staff and their attitudes.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave detailed guidance about each person’s needs, routines, preferences, communication and risks. People and relatives were involved in reviewing their care.
“People's care plans contained highly detailed information about their specific needs, personal preferences, preferred routines, personalities, abilities, and how staff should minimise any risks to them.” from the report
Support with communication and choice
Staff used pictures, electronic devices, Makaton and facial expressions to help people communicate and make decisions.
“This demonstrated people were supported wherever possible to express themselves and use assisted communication devises or other formats to have their voices heard.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities, develop skills and use facilities such as the café and sensory room. Activities took place at the home, on site and in the community.
“People had access to a wide range of activities which met their social, emotional, physical and intellectual needs.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home had systems to monitor care, medicines, accidents, incidents and the quality of the service. Leaders promoted an inclusive and empowering culture.
“There were effective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the care and support being delivered.” from the report
Nurse recruitment
needs fixingThe home had recently struggled to recruit nursing staff and used agency nurses regularly for some shifts. Inspectors found people’s care needs were being met at the time, but this is worth checking now.
“There had been recent difficulties in recruiting nursing staff and agency nurses had been used regularly to cover certain shifts.” from the report
Range of activities
minorRelatives valued the activities but felt they could be expanded. One relative said a favourite activity was only available during term time, and another felt their relative spent too much time in the home.
“Although relatives identified people had access to varied activities which benefited their health and wellbeing, they felt these could be expanded further.” from the report
Use of Makaton
minorRelatives were pleased that staff had received Makaton training, but one relative felt this communication method was not being used as much as they wanted.
“although they felt perhaps this communication method was not being used as much as they would like.” from the report
- 01How many nurses are currently employed, and how often are agency nurses used?
- 02How do you make sure agency nurses understand each person’s complex health needs and care plans?
- 03Which activities are available outside school term time, and how do you respond when someone wants more community activities?
- 04How is Makaton, and each person’s other communication method, used in everyday care?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and deciding on activities?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Hannahwood Mews
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- May 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 March 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.