CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hascott House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, risk assessments and medicine systems. They noted minor infection control issues, including areas with untreated wood that could not be thoroughly cleaned.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable induction, training and experience. People had access to healthcare, support with diet and clear guidance for specific health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make choices and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, preferences and communication. People were supported to maintain relationships, use community services and follow their interests.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- There was no registered manager in post, although a new manager had been employed. The provider had oversight systems, but inspectors judged that leadership was not always fully effective.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home required improvement in leadership.
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection on 16 January 2020. One inspector spoke with a resident, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found that people were safe, received medicines as prescribed, had suitable support from trained staff, and were treated with kindness and respect. People were supported with their health, meals, communication, activities and independence.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. There had not been a registered manager since the previous inspection, although a new manager had been appointed and intended to apply for registration. Inspectors also found minor infection control issues and said the home needed redecoration.
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. The provider used audits and staff competency checks.
“Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff had positive relationships with residents and understood how to support them. Inspectors saw respect for privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff had developed positive relationships with people and knew how to support them.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans recorded people's individual characteristics, preferences and communication needs. Families and other people important to residents were involved where needed.
“There was detailed personalised information on people's individual characteristics, to help staff get to know people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain relationships and take part in activities and hobbies in the community.
“People were supported to access community activities and follow their interests and hobbies.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home had not had a manager registered with the CQC since the previous inspection. A new manager had been appointed and intended to apply for registration.
“Since our last inspection the service had not had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).” from the report
Infection control issues
needs fixingInspectors found some areas that could not be thoroughly cleaned because of untreated wood. The manager knew about the issues and was taking action.
“We identified some minor infection control issues during our visit. We found some areas that could not be thoroughly cleaned, for example areas which had untreated wood.” from the report
Home needs redecoration
minorThe environment was suitable for residents, but inspectors said it needed redecoration. Plans also included updating the environment and creating a sensory room.
“The environment was suitable to meet the needs of the people living there, however needed redecoration.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager applied to become the home's registered manager, and what is the current position?
- 02What action has been completed to deal with the untreated wood and other infection control issues?
- 03When will the redecoration and other planned environmental improvements be completed?
- 04How will you make sure support plans remain up to date and reflect each person's communication needs and preferences?
- 05How are medicine audits and staff competency checks carried out and followed up?
This unannounced re-inspection looked at all five CQC questions, including the care and premises; it followed an earlier 2018 inspection report that was withdrawn because of an issue with some information gathered. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 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.
Every inspection of Hascott House
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 December 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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.