CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Haslewood Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and there were enough staff. However, one person who could not use a call bell might not have been able to summon help between staff checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People and relatives were involved in care planning. Staff received relevant training and supported people with food, healthcare, independence and legal decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew how people communicated and supported their choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had improved and were detailed and person-centred. People were supported to take part in activities, go out and spend their time in ways they enjoyed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had improved its governance systems and completed the actions from the previous inspection. People, relatives and staff were positive about the new registered manager.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but identified some safety and record-keeping points to tighten.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 March 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, the registered manager and care workers. They also reviewed care records, medicines records and other management records.
The home supported eight adults with learning disabilities or autism. People said they felt safe, liked living there and got on well with staff. Inspectors found that people had choices, received personalised care and were supported to become more independent.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that improvements had been made since the previous inspection, when the service was rated Requires Improvement.
There were some points needing attention. These included how one person could call for help from their room, secure storage of medicine cupboard keys, cleaning of transfer equipment and keeping confidential records secure.
Personalised care
Support plans covered people’s needs, wishes and lives in detail. Staff were able to explain the people they supported.
“People's support plans were very detailed and person centred and covered all elements of a person's needs, wishes, and lives.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and daily life. Staff encouraged them to develop everyday skills and do more for themselves.
“People were supported to be more independent and staff included daily skills as part of activities planning.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly to people and respecting their privacy, dignity and communication needs.
“People were treated with respect and kindness. Staff spoke with people in a way that demonstrated they respected them.” from the report
Improved management
The home had addressed the shortfalls found at the previous inspection. Audits and action plans were being used to monitor improvements.
“At this inspection we found that the provider had done what they said they would and there were no outstanding concerns.” from the report
Calling for help
seriousThe home did not have call bells. Inspectors were concerned that one person who spent time in their room could not summon help between regular staff checks.
“We noted that one person spent time in their room and was unable to summon for help if they needed it.” from the report
Medicine cupboard keys
needs fixingMedicine keys were not always stored securely. The manager said staff would be reminded to use the key safe.
“However, the keys to the medicine's cupboards must always be stored securely.” from the report
Cleaning equipment
needs fixingAlthough the home was generally clean, an aid used to help someone transfer needed more thorough cleaning.
“However we did note that an aid used for helping a person transfer needed more thorough cleaning.” from the report
Confidential records
needs fixingThe office had been left open, so staff needed to ensure that the locked cupboard containing records remained secure.
“However, as the office was left open, care must be taken to ensure the cupboard is always locked to ensure there is no unauthorised access.” from the report
- 01How can each person summon help if they are alone in their room, particularly if they cannot use a call bell?
- 02How do you ensure medicine cupboard keys are always kept in the key safe?
- 03What checks are now made to ensure transfer aids are cleaned thoroughly?
- 04How do you keep care records secure when the office is open?
- 05How do you record when activities are offered and when someone chooses not to take part?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the accommodation and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 2019 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
Rated Requires Improvement; care was safe, effective and kind, but some care records and management checks were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 30 January and 2 February 2018. They spoke with a person living there, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed two people's care records, management records and information from health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring. Inspectors found safe medicines practices, suitable risk assessments, kind staff, choice in daily routines and access to healthcare.
It was rated Requires Improvement for responsive and well-led care. One person's care records did not contain accurate or complete information about pressure ulcer care, repositioning, mattress settings, eating and drinking. Quality checks had not been used consistently, and some staff training, supervision and legal records were still being updated.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and checked safely. Records matched the stocks inspected, and staff had received training and competency checks.
“Medicines were stored safely and administered by trained staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicate warmly and give people time. Relatives also described staff as kind and welcoming.
“Staff were calm and friendly with people and we observed them interact with people in a warm and caring way.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were offered choices about personal care, food, going out and their daily routines. The home was arranged to support movement and independence.
“People were given choices throughout the day.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People's day-to-day health needs were addressed and the home worked with health and social care professionals when needed.
“People's day to day health needs were met in a timely way and they had access to health care and social care professionals when necessary.” from the report
One care plan was not safe or current
seriousA person's care plan did not explain how to manage an existing pressure ulcer. It also contained outdated information about eating and drinking, repositioning and the mattress setting.
“In addition, for a person who suffered pressure ulcers, there was no management plan to help encourage the healing of this ulcer.” from the report
Management checks were inconsistent
needs fixingThe home had monitoring systems, but they had not been used consistently. This meant problems with care plans, training and supervision were not always found promptly.
“There were internal quality assurance systems in place. However, these had not been used consistently.” from the report
Training and supervision were being brought up to date
needs fixingSome staff training was overdue and regular supervision had only recently started. Updates had been scheduled or begun, but the work was not complete at the inspection.
“Staff had not received regular training and updates, however the provider had now addressed this and planned for the training updates.” from the report
Activities were under review
minorPeople took part in outings and some activities, but inspectors did not see activities taking place in the home during the visit. Managers said the range of opportunities could be improved.
“However, the management team told us that they felt the provision of opportunities could be improved and they included this in recent action plan.” from the report
- 01Has the care plan for the person with the pressure ulcer been fully updated, including repositioning, mattress settings and how the ulcer is managed?
- 02How do you now check that care plans reflect the latest advice from nurses and speech and language professionals?
- 03Are all staff training updates and regular supervision now complete?
- 04How often are quality audits carried out, and how do you make sure actions are completed?
- 05What activities are currently available that match each person's hobbies, interests and preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions and reviewing the care provided, the premises and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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 Haslewood Avenue
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.