CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hanningfield Retirement Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection control arrangements were in place and staffing levels were judged sufficient.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and experience. People received support with health appointments, nutrition and specialist equipment, and the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care planning and decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. Activities had improved, complaints were investigated and people received support at the end of life when needed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider and registered manager had improved monitoring and quality checks since the previous inspection. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views, and staff described an open and supportive culture.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 15 and 16 May 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the registered manager and the providers. They also reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans and good support with health, food, activities and complaints.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care and supported to remain as independent as possible. The home had acted on issues from the previous inspection, and its overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff listening to people, taking an interest in what they said and respecting their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's choices, abilities, relationships and support needs. Plans were reviewed and updated when information changed.
“Each person had their own individualised care plan which detailed the support they needed, and how staff were to provide that support.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff for people's assessed needs and safe systems for storing, administering and checking medicines.
“There continued to be enough staff to keep people safe. Staffing was matched to people's assessed needs.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had responded to the previous recommendation by keeping detailed activity records and offering activities that people enjoyed.
“This promoted wellbeing and reduced isolation.” from the report
Improved management
The home had acted on the previous inspection's concerns about monitoring. Audits, staff meetings and checks were being used to maintain quality and safety.
“At this inspection we found that improvements had been made.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative if their health needs or mobility changed?
- 02What dementia awareness or other specialist training has the staff team completed?
- 03Which activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you record whether they enjoy and benefit from them?
- 04How are medicines checked for people who need regular or as-needed medicines?
- 05How would you involve me and my relative in care plan reviews and decisions about care?
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and it followed up issues from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 June 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 2018
Hanningfield Retirement Home Limited was rated Requires Improvement; care was safe, effective and kind, but activities and management checks needed improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 13 and 14 March 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, the chef, the manager and provider. They observed care and reviewed care, staffing, training and management records.
People were protected from abuse and received their medicines safely. There were enough staff, the home was clean, and people received suitable food and healthcare. Inspectors also found kind and respectful care, with people involved in decisions about their support.
The home did not always provide activities suited to people's individual interests. Management checks had also failed to identify some problems, including gaps in emergency risk assessments, staff training and activities. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Caring were rated Good, while Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors saw frequent friendly interactions. Staff listened to people, answered questions and protected privacy during personal care.
“We saw staff listening to people, answering questions and taking an interest in what people were saying.” from the report
People were kept safe
There were enough staff, staff were recruited safely and medicines were usually managed safely. The home was clean and infection control measures were in place.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Good healthcare support
The home worked with GPs and other health professionals. People were supported to attend appointments and receive healthcare when needed.
“Records showed that people had received all of the help they needed to see their doctor and other healthcare professionals” from the report
End-of-life support
People's wishes were recorded where appropriate. Staff worked with the hospice and palliative care team to support comfortable and dignified care.
“People were supported at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback. Managers were described as approachable and involved in daily life at the home.
“Management encouraged transparency and honesty within the service.” from the report
Activities were not individual enough
needs fixingSome people were not supported to take part in activities that interested them. Activities were mainly group based, and suggestions such as film nights, knitting and outings had not always been explored.
“We recommend the registered provider review the activities programme to ensure it meets the needs and preferences of all those living at the service.” from the report
Training was not always up to date
needs fixingSome staff did not feel confident because training had not been refreshed. Basic life support training had not been provided for several years, although refresher training was arranged before the inspection ended.
“However, not all staff felt confident in their roles as training was not always kept up to date.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
seriousQuality checks did not identify all the issues found by inspectors, including weaknesses in emergency risk assessments, training and activities. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.
“A failure to effectively monitor the service to identify shortfalls and to make improvements is a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
- 01What individual activities are now available for people who do not enjoy group activities?
- 02How do you record each person's interests and check that activities are offered in line with them?
- 03How often is basic life support and other essential staff training refreshed?
- 04What changes have you made to quality audits since inspectors found they had missed problems?
- 05How are emergency evacuation plans checked to make sure every person's support needs are recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including all five CQC questions, care, the premises and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 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 Hanningfield Retirement Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Hanningfield Retirement Home Limited →
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Hanningfield Retirement Home Limited →
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.