CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hatfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Some medicine recording and storage issues were found, but the manager took swift action to resolve them.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and kept under review. Staff were trained and supported, people were offered suitable food and drink, and staff worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found staff were kind, respectful and considerate. People were involved in decisions, were not rushed and had their privacy and dignity respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and activities reflected people's interests. People felt able to raise concerns and felt listened to.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team understood its responsibilities and used audits, meetings and feedback to improve the home. Inspectors found the service was consistently managed and well-led.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some medicines and equipment records needing prompt correction.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 August 2022. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with 12 people and nine staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, had enough staff, received their medicines as prescribed and had care plans that reflected their needs.
There were some minor problems. Medicine packaging was not always dated, one controlled medicine record was not double-signed, and thickener was stored in an unlocked kitchen unit. Some damaged or rusty equipment was also found, but the manager dealt with these issues immediately or swiftly.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs in a timely way. Staff said that although the home could be busy, they could still meet people's needs.
“Through our observations and talking with people and staff, we found there were enough staff available to meet people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff gave people time, offered choices and protected their privacy.
“Staff were kind, respectful and considerate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs and preferences. Activities included one-to-one and group support, with choices such as reading, gardening and spending time outdoors.
“Care plans were person centred and recorded people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Listening and improvement
The provider collected feedback from people, relatives and staff and used it to make changes. A requested library was being developed during the inspection.
“Following a recent survey, people had requested a small lounge be converted into a library.” from the report
Medicine records and storage
needs fixingSome medicine packaging did not show when it had been opened. One controlled medicine was not double-signed on the medicines record, and thickener was found in an unlocked kitchen unit. The manager took swift action to correct these issues.
“However, some medicine packaging did not have dates of opening and one control drug was not double signed for on the medication administration record (MAR), but there were two signatures in the controlled drug record book.” from the report
Minor repairs
minorInspectors found damaged shelf edging, a rusty microwave and a broken pedal bin. These issues were immediately resolved by the manager.
“During our inspection we noted some shelve edging needed repair, a microwave had started to rust and a peddle bin was broken.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingOne care plan did not say which hoist sling loops should be used, although staff knew what to do. The manager arranged for the documentation to be reviewed and updated.
“One person's care plan we viewed did not have loop configuration for the hoist sling, although staff were knowledgeable about which loops to use.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine packaging has its opening date recorded?
- 02How do you make sure controlled medicines are double-signed on the medication administration record?
- 03How is thickener stored now, and how do you prevent it being left in an unlocked area?
- 04Has the care plan with the missing hoist sling loop information been updated?
- 05What progress has been made with the library requested by people living in the home?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; infection control was mostly reassuring, but visiting arrangements did not always follow guidance.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 24 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured about testing, personal protective equipment, hand hygiene, cleaning, social distancing and managing COVID-19 outbreaks. The home was clean, and staff and residents took part in the testing programme.
There was one problem with visiting. Relatives providing companionship had not been given essential caregiver status because the guidance had been misunderstood. The home changed its visiting practices after the inspection.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report is not a new overall judgement about the quality of care, and it does not provide ratings for the other four areas.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Testing and outbreak response
Staff and residents took part in the testing programme, and action was taken quickly when someone tested positive.
“Actions were swiftly taken when anyone tested positive with COVID-19.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and high-touch areas were included in regular cleaning schedules.
“The home was clean and there were no malodours.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
needs fixingRelatives providing companionship were not given essential caregiver status, so visits were not always facilitated in line with current guidance. The home changed its visiting practices after the inspection.
“The provider was not always facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
- 01How are visits arranged now for relatives who provide companionship or essential support?
- 02What essential caregiver arrangements are available for my relative?
- 03How would you manage visits if there were a COVID-19 case or outbreak?
- 04What measures are currently in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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.
Every inspection of Hatfield House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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. 77 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.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.