CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Harwich House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Several recent incidents had required safeguarding investigation, and some people had received care that did not meet their needs. Risk assessments were being reviewed and improved, while staffing and medicines were found to be suitable during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some assessments had not been up to date or accurate. Staff training was current, but regular one-to-one supervision had not been taking place routinely, and a new supervision schedule had only recently been introduced.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were attentive, reassuring and respectful. They involved people in everyday choices and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were not all current or fully person-centred, and relatives said they had not been involved in reviews for some time. Activities were available inside the home, but COVID-19 restrictions limited activities outside.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Recent management changes had affected care, and oversight, recording and engagement with relatives had not been effective enough. An action plan and some improvements were in place, but they needed to be sustained and monitored.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Harwich House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but concerns about safety, care planning and management oversight.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 12 January 2021. Inspectors reviewed records, medicines, staff files and quality checks. They observed staff supporting people and spoke with staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. People living at the home were unable or unwilling to speak with inspectors.
The home had enough staff and medicines were given safely. Staff were kind, respectful and supported people with dignity, choice and independence. Infection control arrangements for COVID-19 were also found to be suitable.
However, several recent safeguarding investigations had found that some care did not meet people's needs and had placed them at risk. Risk assessments and care plans were being updated, but some were not yet accurate, current or person-centred. Management had changed several times, and quality monitoring and communication with relatives needed to become more reliable.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement, while Caring was rated Good. The provider was asked to submit an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and inspect again.
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw staff treating people with compassion and respecting their dignity. Relatives also described staff as caring.
“Relatives told us that staff were kind and respectful and we saw this during the inspection.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff involved people in day-to-day decisions and encouraged them to do tasks for themselves where possible.
“Staff supported people and encouraged them, where they were able, to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and observed medicines being given individually and explained to people.
“Our own observations supported this, we saw people being attended to in a timely manner and staff responding to people's requests and needs.” from the report
Infection control
The home had cleaning, PPE, testing and other COVID-19 infection control arrangements in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Improvement work started
The provider had begun improving risk assessments, records, oversight and communication with families and professionals.
“We saw improvements had been made to the provider's oversight of the care provided, record keeping and engagement with families and health and social care professionals.” from the report
Care plans were not current
needs fixingSome care plans contained historical information and did not fully reflect people's current likes, dislikes or preferences. Relatives had not always been involved in reviews.
“The care plans were also not fully person centred, nor did they contain current input and information from people or their relatives.” from the report
Management oversight was inconsistent
needs fixingThere had been several management changes, and quality monitoring systems were still being embedded. The provider needed to show that its improvement plan would be completed and maintained.
“The action plan was practical and appropriate, however the delivery of the plan would need to be monitored over time, to ensure that the improvements identified were implemented and sustained.” from the report
Staff supervision had lapsed
minorStaff had not routinely had one-to-one supervision meetings. A new schedule had been introduced after inspectors raised this.
“However, we saw that staff had not routinely had one to one supervision meetings.” from the report
- 01How have you completed and checked the review of my relative's risk assessments?
- 02When was my relative's care plan last reviewed, and how can I and my relative contribute to the next review?
- 03What changes have been made since the recent safeguarding investigations, and how do you know they are working?
- 04Who is currently responsible for the home's day-to-day management, and when will the manager complete the CQC registration process?
- 05How are staff supervision meetings and the provider's improvement action plan being monitored?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, but the visit was kept short because of COVID-19 restrictions and people living at the home could not speak directly with inspectors. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2021 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 Harwich House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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.