CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hartford Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Hartford Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 25 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The inspection was announced one day in advance.
The home had a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened, personal protective equipment was used properly, testing was available and the home was clean. They also found risk assessments, infection control audits and an up-to-date policy.
The home followed current visiting guidance. Essential care givers could visit, while other visits took place in a screened room, garden or through a window. Video calls were also supported.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for safe care.
Infection control
The home was clean, frequently touched areas received extra cleaning and infection control checks were carried out.
“The care home was clean and hygienic. Frequently touched areas, such as door handles, handrails received enhanced cleaning.” from the report
Visitor screening
Visitors, including professionals, were screened before entering and had to show vaccination evidence and a negative lateral flow test.
“All visitors, including professionals, were subject to a range of screening procedures, including showing evidence of Covid-19 vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the home was allowed.” from the report
Visiting options
Essential care givers could visit during the outbreak. Other families had alternatives such as screened-room, garden, window and video visits.
“Alternative visiting arrangement were in place for other people to visits in a screened room, garden, window visits.” from the report
Risk planning
Individual risk assessments included guidance for staff if someone developed COVID-19 symptoms.
“Detailed risk assessments were in place for people who used the service which included guidance for staff to follow should the person display symptoms of COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative to visit family during a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 02What screening, testing and vaccination requirements currently apply to visitors and professionals?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 04What infection control checks and cleaning are carried out in the home?
- 05How would you respond if my relative developed COVID-19 symptoms?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Hartford Court was rated Good overall, with improvements made since the previous inspection but some records and staffing areas still needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 February 2018. Two inspectors looked at the home, its records and how people were cared for. They reviewed six people's care records, ten staff and recruitment records, and records about medicines, safety and quality.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated kindly and respectfully, received suitable care and support, and had care plans that reflected their needs and preferences.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement in three areas at the previous inspection in April 2017. Inspectors found that earlier problems with risk assessments, medicines, person-centred care and quality monitoring had been addressed.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people patiently and respectfully. Families and professionals also described the care as very kind.
“People were supported by staff who were exceptionally kind, caring and committed to the people they support.” from the report
Improved care planning
The new computerised care planning system contained detailed information about people's needs and preferences. Daily records were updated as people's needs changed.
“The service provided person centred care.” from the report
Responsive management
The management team sought feedback from people, families and staff. Audits were used to identify problems and track improvements.
“There was a comprehensive governance system in place to regularly monitor the service and check for quality.” from the report
Medicine recording omissions
needs fixingInspectors found two medicine recording omissions on the inspection day. The home corrected them immediately, and no impact on people was identified.
“We found two recording omissions on the day of the inspection.” from the report
High number of falls
needs fixingThe home had a high number of falls. It recorded and analysed them and took steps to reduce the risks, but families should ask about the current position.
“The service had a high number of falls.” from the report
Staff turnover and training
needs fixingThere had been a large turnover of staff, and some staff said they could feel stretched when colleagues were absent. Inspectors also identified a need to spread dementia training more widely.
“The service had experienced a large turnover of staff.” from the report
Limits on outside activities
minorThe minibus was shared with other homes and neither activity co-ordinator could drive. This restricted some activities outside the home.
“The sharing of the mini-bus with other homes did restrict the outside activities that could be organised and enjoyed by those who liked to participate.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingNot all residents had a death and dying care plan in place at the time of the provider's recent audit. The report says this should be addressed at an appropriate time.
“Death and dying care plans were not in place for all residents.” from the report
- 01How many medicine recording errors or omissions have there been since this inspection, and what checks are now used?
- 02How many falls have occurred recently, what patterns have you found, and what action is being taken for my relative?
- 03How many care staff are normally on duty on each shift, and what happens when staff call in sick?
- 04What dementia training has all staff completed, and how is this knowledge shared across the team?
- 05How often can residents take part in trips outside the home, given that the minibus is shared with other homes?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the building, care, records, staffing, medicines, safety and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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 Hartford Court
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 May 2016.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 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.