CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hart Plain Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staffing levels were sufficient, recruitment checks were completed and risks were reviewed. Medicines were not always managed safely because the policy was incomplete, storage temperatures were not monitored and some opened medicines were not dated.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and regular supervision. People received support with healthy food, weight monitoring and access to healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well, supported their choices and respected their privacy and dignity. People had positive relationships with staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, wishes and interests. People were supported with activities, work placements, holidays, complaints and end of life preferences.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager and provider were approachable and involved in the home, but several policies were outdated and audits did not clearly check all relevant areas. CQC recommended reviewing and updating policies and procedures.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines records and management systems needed improvement.
This was an announced inspection of the home for up to seven people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. Six people lived there. Inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and building records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular risk reviews, person-centred care plans, suitable training, healthy food, access to healthcare and kind relationships between staff and people living there.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Some policies were out of date, complaints information still named a previous manager, and audits did not clearly check some areas. Medicines were generally given correctly, but the medicines policy and some recording practices needed improvement. The manager took immediate action on the issues identified.
Kind, respectful support
People said staff were caring and supportive. Staff knew people well, respected privacy and asked permission before entering rooms or providing care.
“People told us staff were 'very caring and supported them well'.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans included people's needs, hopes, dreams and life stories. People were supported to choose activities, work placements, holidays and meals.
“Care plans were person centred and contained information on how to meet people's needs along with information about peoples hopes and dreams and their life stories.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs at the time of the inspection. Recruitment checks and clearances were completed before staff started work.
“There was a robust recruitment process; staff were checked to ensure they were suited to working with vulnerable adults before commencing employment.” from the report
Positive management approach
The manager and provider were accessible and open to suggestions. Staff said they felt listened to and valued.
“Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and found supporting the people who lived there very rewarding.” from the report
Medicines procedures
seriousThe medicines policy did not cover some types of medicine, storage temperatures were not monitored and some liquid medicines and ointments were not dated when opened. The manager acted immediately and later sent CQC a new policy.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Out-of-date policies
needs fixingSeveral policies did not reflect current best practice, including infection control, safeguarding and mental capacity. Some displayed information also named a previous manager.
“At the time of our inspection a number of policies and procedures were outdated, had not been reviewed and did not reflect current best practice.” from the report
Limited quality checks
needs fixingAudits took place every three months, but it was unclear how deeply they checked policies. Safeguarding logs and accident or incident logs were not audited.
“There was no clarity as to the depth of the check, was it checking the content of the policy or whether it was present.” from the report
Premises issues found
needs fixingFirst-floor windows did not have suitable restrictors and a bathroom light fitting was unsuitable. The provider later sent photographic evidence that the work had been completed.
“When we inspected we found that suitable window restrictors were not fitted to first floor windows and a light fitting was not suitable for a bathroom.” from the report
- 01What checks are now made on opened liquid medicines and ointments, medicine expiry dates and medicine storage temperatures?
- 02Have all policies, including infection control, safeguarding and mental capacity, been reviewed and updated?
- 03How are safeguarding logs and accident or incident records now audited?
- 04Have the window restrictors and bathroom light fitting issues been fully resolved?
- 05How will staffing levels change if people with higher support needs move into the home?
This was the first inspection under the new provider and covered all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 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 Hart Plain Care
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 February 2017.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.