CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Harmony House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, sufficient staffing, safe medicines systems, infection control measures and processes for learning from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training and support. People received help with food, drink and health care, and staff understood consent and mental capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were offered choices and supported to make decisions about their care and daily lives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. People had activities, support to communicate and ways to raise concerns, and complaints had been addressed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The staff team shared a clear vision for the home and people and relatives spoke positively about the management. There were audits, feedback arrangements and systems to monitor quality, although there was no registered manager at the inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with management arrangements still being settled.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 15 May 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff, managers and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, monitoring charts, audits and maintenance records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and staff knew their needs. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, good support with food and drink, respectful care and personalised care plans.
The home had recently lost its previous registered manager and did not yet have a registered manager in post. Inspectors said management changes had not harmed the quality of care. The service was rated Good overall, the same as at the previous inspection published in October 2016.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse, and risk plans gave staff clear actions to reduce risks.
“People told us they felt safe, they were relaxed and familiar with the staff and each other.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond calmly and respectfully. People were supported to make choices and their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“Staff supported people in a kind, calm way. They responded to requests respectfully and followed them up immediately when they could.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's individual needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and kept up to date with changes in their care.
“Care plans were personalised and provided details of how to support people to meet their individual preferences and assessed needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
People received their medicines as prescribed. Inspectors found medicines were obtained, stored, recorded, administered and disposed of safely, with staffing levels judged sufficient.
“Medicines were safely obtained, stored, recorded, administered and disposed of.” from the report
Supportive team culture
Staff said they felt supported and listened to. Inspectors found the team was motivated and committed to improving people's experience.
“Staff were motivated, spoke positively and felt well supported.” from the report
Registered manager not yet in place
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with the CQC when inspectors visited. The report says management continuity was maintained and care was not affected, but families should check whether this has since been resolved.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
One notification had not been made
needs fixingThe manager had not sent one required notification to the CQC. The provider said measures would be put in place to prevent a repeat.
“They explained why they had not made one notification and the nominated individual assured us that measures would be in place to ensure that similar situations would be notified appropriately.” from the report
- 01Is there now a manager registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home day to day?
- 02What was the notification that had not been sent to the CQC, and what new checks are now used to prevent this happening again?
- 03How will you assess and update my relative's risks, care plan and medicines records after they move in?
- 04What activities are available for people who prefer to stay in their room, as well as for those who use communal areas?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews, meetings, surveys and complaint handling?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with care, records, medicines, management systems and the premises examined; the previous inspection was also comprehensive and rated the service Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with Good ratings in all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 September 2016. Two inspectors and an expert-by-experience visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care and mealtimes, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and safety records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was also rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and safe recruitment. People received support with food, drink, health needs and medicines.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful care. People were involved in decisions, had personalised care plans and could take part in activities or maintain relationships with visitors. The home had an approachable manager, regular quality checks and a system for handling complaints.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and risk assessments gave clear instructions for reducing risks.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home, staff were kind and compassionate and the care they received was good.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely, and recruitment checks had been completed.
“We saw there was enough skilled and experienced staff to ensure people were safe and cared for.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Staff were patient and respectful. They supported people's independence, explained care before carrying it out and protected privacy during personal care.
“Throughout the inspection staff interactions between people and staff were caring and professional and people's independence was encouraged.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and communication needs. People could choose activities, receive visitors and have support tailored to their interests.
“Care plans were personalised and reflected the individualised care and support staff provided to people.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described the manager as approachable and supportive. Regular audits and feedback were used to identify and follow up improvements.
“Regular audits of the quality and safety of the home were carried out by the registered manager and the provider.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing levels set against residents' current care needs, and how often are agency staff used now?
- 02How has the new electronic care-record system developed since the inspection, and how is care checked if records are incomplete?
- 03How are residents and families involved in decisions about capacity, best-interest decisions and any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 04How will you record and follow a resident's end-of-life wishes, including any religious or cultural requirements?
- 05What activities are available for people who prefer one-to-one support or choose not to attend group activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; the previous inspection on 7 October 2013 found no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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 Harmony House Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.