CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hartington House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found individual risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment and effective medicine procedures. The home also reviewed incidents and audited infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received healthy meals and care plans were agreed with them. Staff worked with mental health services and received training relevant to people's needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, respectful and protected their privacy. Care was personalised, although some wording in care documents was not appropriate and needed review.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People were involved in planning their care and were offered activities suited to their needs. The home explained how people could raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager used audits, staff meetings and feedback to monitor the home and improve care. Inspectors found an open and supportive culture.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Hartington House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some care-record wording needed improvement.
The inspection took place on 5 March 2020 and was announced 48 hours beforehand. Inspectors spoke with three people, three staff and the manager. They looked around the home, checked two care records, and reviewed staffing, recruitment, training and management records.
The home provided personal care for five adults with mental health conditions, with space for up to six people. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine procedures, suitable risk assessments and a clean environment. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind and respectful.
Inspectors found that care was personalised. People were involved in their care plans, supported to make choices and offered activities suited to their needs. Staff received training, worked with other agencies and provided healthy meals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating for each area as the previous inspection, published on 5 September 2017.
People felt safe
The home used individual risk assessments, monitored the environment and had enough staff to meet people's needs.
“The management team created individualised risk assessments to guide staff about maintaining people's safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People consistently described staff as caring, kind and respectful of their privacy and personal space.
“People consistently stated staff were caring, kind and respected their privacy.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in their care plans and supported to make choices about their daily lives and goals.
“Care was personalised and centred on each person's preferences.” from the report
Activities suited to people
The home offered activities based on individual needs, including outings, holidays and games.
“The registered manager provided a programme of activities tailored to each person's individualised needs.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff training covered areas including medicines, nutrition, infection control and person-centred care.
“The registered manager provided a range of training to enhance staff skills and experience.” from the report
Care-record wording
minorInspectors found that some wording in care documents was not appropriate. The manager said all records would be reviewed and amended.
“We noted some of the wording in care documents was not always appropriate.” from the report
- 01Which care records had wording that was not appropriate, and have they now all been reviewed and amended?
- 02How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks and care needs?
- 03How are medicines checked and recorded to make sure they are given safely and as prescribed?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative, and how would they be matched to their interests and needs?
- 05How would you work with the community mental health team and other agencies to provide continuous support?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home environment; the report says end-of-life care was not provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 2020 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with premises upgrades still ongoing.
The inspection visit took place on 19 July 2017. The report says it was unannounced, but also says the home was given 24 hours' notice because people were often out during the day. Inspectors spoke with three people, one relative and one healthcare professional. They reviewed two care records, training records, quality checks and recruitment arrangements.
The home supported up to five adults with mental health needs. Four people lived there at the time. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine support and staff with suitable training. People were supported to make choices, build skills and take positive risks safely.
Care plans were reviewed when people's needs or preferences changed. Inspectors saw kind and respectful relationships, support with activities and family contact, and systems for handling complaints and checking quality. All five areas were rated Good, and the home remained Good since the previous inspection.
Safety and staffing
People said they felt safe and inspectors found enough staff to support people with what they wanted to do. Recruitment checks and medicine training were also in place.
“People told us, and we saw, that there were enough staff to support them safely and to assist them to do what they wanted.” from the report
Respect and dignity
People were supported to make their own decisions and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff also supported privacy, dignity and personal identity.
“All interactions we saw between people and staff was courteous, kind and respectful.” from the report
Independence
Support focused on helping people build skills and make choices, while allowing them to take positive risks in their lives.
“People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's goals and preferences. Staff knew people's histories, health needs, likes and dislikes.
“We saw people's care and support plans were regularly reviewed with them.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People chose activities they enjoyed, including cooking, music and going out. Staff also helped people keep in touch with family.
“Staff recognised the importance of family relationships and supported people to maintain them.” from the report
Some records were not available during the visit
minorStaff files were held at another location, so inspectors could not view them directly. They relied on staff confirming that safe recruitment procedures had been followed.
“Staff files were kept at another location, so we were not able to view them.” from the report
- 01What upgrading work is still planned for the building, and when will it be completed?
- 02How will you review my relative's care and support plan when their needs or preferences change?
- 03How do you support people to take positive risks while keeping them safe?
- 04How do you check that staff remain trained and competent to support people with medicines and mental health needs?
- 05How should relatives raise a concern or complaint, and how will it be followed up?
The inspection covered all five CQC questions and included speaking with three people, one relative and one healthcare professional, as well as reviewing two care records and other service records. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 2017 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 Hartington House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bolton
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.