CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Harden Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were administered safely, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Some staff raised concerns about staffing levels on the second floor, which managers said they would review.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and staff received training and supervision. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and decisions about their care. Show-and-tell was not used consistently at mealtimes, and dementia signage was limited.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind, warm and respectful interactions. People's privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's needs, preferences and life history, and staff knew how to support them. Activities were taking place, but some people felt bored and there was mixed feedback about the range available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and provider had systems to monitor quality, risks and incidents. They were open to feedback and acted on some issues during the inspection, although staffing and activities still needed further review.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some improvements needed to staffing, activities and the environment.
Inspectors visited without notice on 12 and 13 July 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received medicines safely, and were supported by trained staff. Care was described as kind, respectful and based on people's needs and choices.
There were some areas to improve. Feedback about staffing on the second floor was mixed. Some people said there were not enough activities, dementia-friendly resources or church visits. Worn kitchenettes and limited dementia signage were also noted. Managers said they would review these issues, and some record problems were corrected during the inspection.
Safe medicines and risk management
Risk assessments were reviewed, staff knew people's needs, and medicines records were accurate. The home also used incidents and accidents to identify lessons and improve safety.
“Medication administration records (MAR) were accurate. Regular checks and audits took place to identify any concerns and address any shortfalls.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and with respect. Staff protected privacy and encouraged people to remain independent.
“We observed kind interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff communication with people was warm and friendly, showing a caring attitude.” from the report
Good communication and leadership
The home had a registered manager, regular audits and systems for feedback. Relatives and professionals said communication with the home was good.
“There was a positive culture in the service. The registered manager was focused on developing the service and demonstrated good knowledge of people's needs and the needs of the staffing team.” from the report
Support for health and choices
People's health, nutrition, communication and decision-making needs were recorded. Staff worked with health and social care professionals and involved people in choices about their care.
“The provider involved health and social care professionals when needed and responded to recommendations from them.” from the report
Staffing on the second floor
needs fixingSome staff were concerned that staffing levels might not always be enough on the second floor. Inspectors saw staff were busy, although attentive, and managers said staffing levels would be reviewed.
“Some staff were concerned about sufficient staffing on the second floor.” from the report
Activities and social opportunities
needs fixingSome people said they were bored, had little to do or missed church visits. Activities were taking place, but there was limited dementia-friendly equipment and no dedicated activity staff.
“Some people told us they were bored and did not have much to do.” from the report
Worn kitchenettes
minorThe kitchenettes in the lounge areas were worn and damaged. The manager had already identified this and showed inspectors plans for refurbishment.
“The kitchenettes in the lounge areas on each of the three floors were worn and damaged.” from the report
Limited dementia signage
minorThere was not much signage to help people living with dementia find their way around the home. This could affect independence and confidence.
“However, there was limited dementia signage around the home.” from the report
Inconsistent mealtime choices
minorStaff did not consistently use the show-and-tell method to help people choose their meals. The manager said staff should use it, and mealtime audits were monitoring this.
“However, this was not used consistently.” from the report
- 01What has changed about staffing levels on the second floor since the inspection?
- 02What activities are now available for people living with dementia, and how are church visits or other personal interests supported?
- 03Have the three worn kitchenettes been refurbished, and if not, when is this planned?
- 04How do staff make sure people are consistently supported to choose their meals using show-and-tell?
- 05What dementia-friendly signs and resources are now available around the home?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the report says this was the first inspection of the newly registered service, while the previous provider had been rated Good in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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.
Every inspection of Harden Hall
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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 Walsall
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 £950 to £1,200 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.