CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hartford Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and monitored, and the home was clean. They recommended reviewing staffing levels, particularly on the upper floor.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care records and documentation had improved. People were supported with dietary needs, healthcare and consent, and staff had training and support.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit, so no separate rating was given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit, so no separate rating was given in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers used audits and action plans to monitor and improve the home. Record keeping was still under review, and there was no registered manager in post at the time of inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found clear improvements since the previous inspection, with safe care and effective management, but staffing and tailored activities still need attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 and 19 January 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, risk management, infection control, recruitment and quality checks had improved. People received support with food, drinks, healthcare and their legal rights.
There were still areas to improve. The provider was asked to review staffing levels on the upper floor and provide more tailored activities for people with complex needs. Records were also still being reviewed and updated.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach. This visit did not inspect Caring or Responsive.
Safer medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, recorded and checked safely. People received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines were managed safely, including storage, controlled drugs and returned medicines” from the report
Improved safety systems
Risks were assessed and monitored, including falls. Fire safety and other environmental checks were in place.
“Risks to people had been assessed, monitored and reviewed.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were supported with balanced diets and specific dietary needs. Staff involved specialist services when needed and helped people access healthcare.
“Referrals to dietitians and the Speech and Language Therapy team had been made when required” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff received induction, supervision and ongoing training, including more advanced dementia training. Inspectors found staff knew people well.
“Staff completed a variety of ongoing training to enhance their skills.” from the report
Improved leadership
The provider and management team used audits and action plans to oversee the service and track improvements.
“The provider and management team carried out regular audits to oversee the operation of the home and improve quality.” from the report
Staffing on the upper floor
needs fixingStaff said that there were times when one fewer staff member was on duty than planned. A senior care worker was sometimes asked to cover two floors, so inspectors recommended a review.
“We recommend the provider review staffing levels, particularly on the upper floor to ensure enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities for complex needs
needs fixingA good range of activities was available, but inspectors said some people with more complex needs needed more personalised stimulation.
“We recommend the provider reviews activities to ensure there is more tailored stimulation for those people with more complex needs using best practice guidance.” from the report
Records still being updated
minorDocumentation had improved, but the manager was continuing to review care records and risk assessments. Two recently admitted people initially did not have personal emergency evacuation plans, although this was corrected straight away.
“Record keeping was still under review, but staff were knowledgeable about people's needs despite this.” from the report
No registered manager in post
minorThere was no registered manager at the inspection. An application had been submitted and was being processed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post, but an application had been submitted and was being processed.” from the report
- 01How many care workers and senior care workers are scheduled on the upper floor at different times of day?
- 02What happens when staffing falls below the planned level, and how is this recorded?
- 03What tailored activities and stimulation are now available for people with complex needs?
- 04How often are care records and risk assessments checked and updated?
- 05Has the application for a registered manager been completed, and who is currently responsible for day-to-day management?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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, May 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines management, gaps in risk and care records, and inconsistent leadership.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. It began with Safe and Well-led, then broadened to include Effective because of concerns about care, food, nutrition and medicines. Inspectors visited on 08 March, 06 April and 07 April 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Some medicines were not given safely or on time. Risk assessments, emergency information and call bells were not always managed properly. Care plans and records lacked important details and were not always reviewed or accurate. The home was clean and tidy, but staff did not always follow infection control guidance fully.
People were supported with food and drinks, and many people praised the kindness of staff. However, views about food, staffing and leadership were mixed. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and also Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led. The inspection found breaches of Regulations 12 and 17.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff said they would report safeguarding concerns.
“People told us they felt safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the kindness and caring nature of the staff team.
“People and their relatives commented on the kind and caring nature of the staff team.” from the report
Food and drinks offered
People were supported to eat and drink, with nutritious food and snack stations available around the home.
“People were supported to eat and drink and offered a nutritious diet. Snack stations were available around the service, including fruit.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, and its infection control policy was up to date.
“The service was clean and tidy and the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Medicines were not safely managed
seriousInspectors found medicines left with people who should have been supervised, doses given too early, incomplete guidance and gaps in records. This created a risk of harm and was a breach of Regulation 12.
“Medicines were not safely managed. We observed staff leaving medicines with people to take who should have been supervised.” from the report
Risks and emergency arrangements
seriousRisk assessments were not always reviewed. Emergency information was not always easy for staff to find, some personal evacuation plans were delayed, and some call bells were not working or within reach. This was a breach of Regulation 12.
“Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Incomplete care records
seriousCare plans, food and fluid records and records of healthcare visits were not always complete, accurate or reviewed on time. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
“People's needs and choices were assessed but care plans lacked some important details. Records did not always accurately and fully reflect people's care needs.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits and other checks did not always find or fix problems with medicines, care planning and records. The provider had already identified some care record problems, but inspectors found they continued.
“Quality assurance systems and audits were not always effective. During this inspection we identified shortfalls in relation to systems and processes, including medicines management and care planning.” from the report
Communication and dementia support
needs fixingCommunication between staff and with health professionals needed improvement. Staff also needed more training to support people living with dementia who showed distressed behaviours.
“People, relatives, healthcare professionals and staff told us communication needed to be improved.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure medicines are given at the right time, with the correct guidance and complete records?
- 02How do you now check that call bells work, are plugged in and are within each person's reach?
- 03How quickly are personal emergency evacuation plans completed when someone moves in?
- 04What is being done to make care plans, food and fluid records and healthcare records complete and up to date?
- 05What progress has been made with the action plan, the turnaround manager and recruitment of permanent staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, broadened to include Effective; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and no ratings were given for them, while the overall rating used the inspected findings and previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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 Hartford Court
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 2010.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £1,190 a week. 20 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.