CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hargrave House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, enough staff, safe medicines management and action taken after incidents. Some equipment checks had missed worn walking-frame ferrules and missing wheelchair seatbelts, although action was taken during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff were trained and supported, people received a varied diet and staff worked with health professionals. Communication around some mealtimes needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their dignity and encouraged their independence and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's needs, preferences and routines. People could choose activities and received personalised support. End of life planning needed further development.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as visible and approachable. Inspectors found effective audits, staff teamwork and systems for learning from incidents and complaints.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Hargrave House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with end of life planning and some mealtime arrangements needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living there, visitors, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, training records, staffing rotas, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans and positive relationships between staff and the people living there.
There were some areas to improve. End of life planning did not yet fully record people's wishes. Inspectors also found problems with communication at mealtimes and some equipment checks. The home was asked to develop its end of life planning.
Safe medicines and incident follow-up
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Incidents and accidents were reviewed, with steps taken to reduce the chance of them happening again.
“Systems were in place to analyse incidents and accidents and the registered manager used this to identify themes.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, preferences and support needs. Staff knew people well and offered activities and choices suited to individuals.
“Care plans were detailed and had information about people's specific needs, personal preferences, routines and how staff should support them in a way they preferred to ensure their wellbeing.” from the report
Good leadership and teamwork
The manager had a clear view of the service. Staff understood their roles, felt supported and contributed ideas for improvements.
“There was an ethos of continually moving the service forward.” from the report
End of life plans
needs fixingPlans did not yet fully record people's preferences, cultural requirements or wishes after death. Inspectors recommended using a reputable source to improve this area.
“End of life care planning required further development to include people's preferences, cultural requirements and their wishes after they died.” from the report
Mealtime communication
needs fixingOn the residential wing, poor communication meant one person almost missed breakfast and some lunches arrived at varying times. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Communication and organisation around mealtimes on Hargrave House residential wing required development to ensure people received meals promptly.” from the report
Some areas looked tired
minorParts of the residential wing needed decoration, including the staircase and wood cladding. A programme of continuing decoration was in place.
“Some areas of the Hargrave House residential wing looked tired and in need of decoration, for example, the staircase and the wood cladding.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to end of life plans, and how are people's cultural needs and wishes after death recorded?
- 02How do you now check walking frames, wheelchairs and other equipment, and how quickly are faults put right?
- 03What changes have been made to ensure breakfast and lunch are served at the right time?
- 04What decoration work has been completed on the residential wing since the inspection?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels at busy times and overnight, when some people reported delays or staff appearing rushed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 May 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, September 2016
Hargrave House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 and 19 August 2016. The inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care, meals and activities, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, appropriate medicines management and personalised risk assessments. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and decision-making.
Staff were described as friendly, kind and respectful. Care plans included people's histories, preferences and needs. Inspectors found two issues: some environmental risk assessments were overdue, and one medicines record had a gap, although the medicine had been given. The home took immediate action to update the risk assessments.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, respectful interactions. Staff knew people's backgrounds and used this information to support conversations and care.
“People were cared for by staff that were friendly, kind and empathetic.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisals. The home had a dedicated trainer and monitored training records.
“Staff were supported in carrying out their roles by way of regular supervision and appraisal of their performance.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's histories, likes, dislikes, communication methods and health needs. Staff followed these plans consistently.
“Each person who used the service had a personalised care plan that held information about their history, likes, dislikes, communication methods” from the report
Leadership and quality checks
Inspectors found stable leadership and regular checks covering areas such as medicines, care records, nutrition, infection control and the environment.
“The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place.” from the report
Overdue environmental risk reviews
needs fixingSome risk assessments for the home environment had not been reviewed by their recommended dates. Management took immediate action to update them.
“We found these risk assessments needed to be updated as the recommended review dates had passed.” from the report
One medicines recording gap
minorOne person's medicines administration record had gaps on one morning. Inspectors were satisfied the medicine had been given, so this was a recording error rather than a missed dose.
“The person's stock of medicines showed that they had received their medicines.” from the report
- 01How were the overdue environmental risk assessments updated, and how are their review dates monitored now?
- 02What checks are made to ensure every medicine administration is recorded correctly?
- 03What progress has been made with the plan to reduce shift lengths and improve staff stability?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or mobility change?
- 05How often are relatives asked for feedback, and how are actions from that feedback followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; the previous inspection took place in February 2014. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 2016 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 Hargrave House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 2011.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.