CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Harding House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed appropriately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and support plans. Staff were trained and supported people with food, healthcare, independence and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and addressed people's health, emotional, behavioural and communication needs. The home supported BSL communication, activities and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive teamwork, approachable management and effective checks on care quality and safety. They noted that the latest organisation-wide survey was not specific to the home.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only a minor concern about the usefulness of survey results.
This was the first inspection since the home registered in 2021. An unannounced visit took place on 29 September 2022, followed by a visit on 1 November 2022. One inspector spoke with all 9 people living there, using an interpreter, and also spoke with staff and managers.
Inspectors found that people were safe, received their medicines as prescribed and were supported by enough trained staff. The home was clean, risks were assessed, and care records described people's health needs, choices and communication needs.
People said staff treated them well and supported their independence. Staff mainly used British Sign Language, or BSL, to communicate with people. All five areas were rated Good. There were no breaches of regulations and no previous rating to compare with.
Communication in BSL
The home used a mix of deaf and hearing staff, with staff mainly communicating with people using BSL. Communication needs were assessed and staff could receive support to learn BSL.
“The service employed a mix of deaf staff and hearing staff who mainly communicated with people using BSL.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans covered people's health, emotional, behavioural, medical and mental health needs. They also recorded routines, interests, choices and risks.
“Support plans were comprehensive and fully addressed people's health, emotional, behavioural, medical, and mental health needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well. Staff respected privacy and dignity and involved people in decisions about their care.
“People's choices and decisions about their care were listened to, respected and documented in their support plans.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed, and medicines were checked and administered according to instructions.
“Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to safely support people.” from the report
Good management oversight
The manager carried out checks on care quality and safety. Action plans were recorded, monitored and overseen by senior managers.
“There was good organisational oversight of the service.” from the report
Survey results were not home-specific
minorThe latest survey results given to inspectors covered the wider organisation rather than this home. Inspectors said this may limit how useful the results are for understanding people's experience at the home.
“It was however noted that the latest organisational survey results supplied to CQC were not specific to the service which may limit their usefulness.” from the report
- 01How many staff who would support my relative can communicate confidently in BSL?
- 02How do you support staff who are still learning BSL, and how is communication quality checked?
- 03How will you use feedback and surveys that are specific to this home?
- 04How would you support my relative to maintain independence, learn daily living skills and take part in activities?
- 05How would you record and respond to changes in my relative's mental health or wellbeing?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered care home and covered all five CQC questions, with an unannounced first visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 2023 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control, but the manager needed clearer understanding of visitor vaccination rules.
This was a targeted inspection on 31 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The inspection was announced, with 24 hours' notice.
The home had handwashing and sanitising facilities, visitor symptom screening, cleaning schedules and suitable protective equipment. People isolating were kept out of communal areas and given alternative facilities. Staff and residents were included in whole-home testing.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, admissions, testing, protective equipment and cleaning. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Visitor screening
Visitors were screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before entering. Clear signs and information explained the safety procedures.
“All visitors were screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before being allowed to enter the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used masks, gloves and aprons when people were isolating, and used protective equipment where distancing was not possible.
“Staff wore masks, gloves, and aprons in all rooms where people were isolating.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
The home had cleaning schedules covering frequently touched areas, and inspectors found that records showed the schedule was being followed.
“Records/checks of cleaning showed compliance with the cleaning schedule.” from the report
Visitor vaccination rules
needs fixingThe registered manager did not fully understand the vaccination conditions for friends and relatives visiting the home. Inspectors clarified the requirements and signposted further resources.
“The registered manager did not fully understand COVID-19 visitor vaccination requirements.” from the report
- 01How do you currently check and explain the COVID-19 vaccination requirements for friends and relatives visiting?
- 02What arrangements are used if a resident needs to isolate, including access to bathrooms and communal areas?
- 03How often are high-touch areas such as door handles and light switches cleaned, and can we see the records?
- 04How are residents and staff included in testing when there is a risk of COVID-19 infection?
- 05What staffing pressures are currently affecting the home, if any?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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 Harding House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 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 Wandsworth
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
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.