Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Hatherley Care Home Limited

Goodpublished 9 June 2018, 8 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found sufficient staff to support people and saw staff helping people safely. Some staff vacancies were being covered by existing staff and agency staff.
Effective?
Good
This area was not inspected during this visit.
Caring?
Good
This area was not inspected during this visit, although inspectors observed staff giving people time and choice.
Responsive?
Good
This area was not inspected during this visit.
Well-led?
Good
This area was not inspected during this visit.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, June 2018

Hatherley Care Home Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, attentive care, but noted staff vacancies and some waits at busy times.

This was an unannounced inspection on 10 May 2018. It was carried out early in the morning after concerns were raised about staffing. One inspector spoke with people living there, staff, the manager and a visiting health professional, and checked staffing rotas.

Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were busy but visible and attentive. People said they were well cared for, although some said they sometimes had to wait at busy times. The home was recruiting more staff and used agency staff to cover gaps.

The overall rating was Good. The inspection mainly looked at whether the home was safe. The other four areas were not inspected during this visit because there were no concerns identified through monitoring or the inspection activity. The previous inspection in September 2017 had also rated the home Good.

What inspectors praised
  • Enough staff on duty

    Inspectors found that staffing levels met people's needs. Managers monitored people's dependency levels and were available to help when needed.

    “Sufficient numbers of staff were available to support people.” from the report
  • Calm and attentive care

    Staff were visible and supported people with patience. Inspectors saw people being helped to move around and get comfortable.

    “The atmosphere was calm and staff gave people the time that they needed.” from the report
  • Staff knew people well

    Care was adapted to people's choices and preferences. Staff knew details that mattered to individuals, including how they preferred their drinks.

    “Care was provided in a person centred way.” from the report
  • Experienced team

    The staff team included experienced workers. Staff and a visiting health professional spoke positively about teamwork and communication.

    “There was a mix of skills within the staff team including some very experienced staff.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Staff vacancies

    minor

    There were vacancies, so the home was recruiting and using some agency staff. The report says staffing levels were sufficient on the inspection day.

    “There were some staff vacancies and the service was recruiting additional staff.” from the report
  • Some waits at busy times

    minor

    Some people said they sometimes waited for staff when the home was busy. Inspectors did not find that call bells rang for extended periods.

    “Some people said that they had to wait for staff to become available at busy times” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How many permanent care staff are currently in post, and how many vacancies remain?
  2. 02How often do you use agency staff, and will agency workers usually know the people living here?
  3. 03What happens when several people need help at the same time, especially during the early morning?
  4. 04How do you monitor waiting times for call bells and other requests for help?
  5. 05When were the other four CQC areas last fully reviewed, and what were their ratings?

This was an early-morning focused inspection of Safe after concerns about staffing; the other four key questions were not inspected and their ratings were not reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, October 2017

Hatherley Care Home Limited was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some records and building improvements still needed.

Inspectors visited the home without notice on 12 and 13 September 2017. They spoke with 12 residents, seven relatives, six staff, three visiting professionals and the manager. They also checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files, staffing rotas and quality records.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff on the visit, safe medicine systems, trained staff, respectful care, suitable activities and approachable management.

The previous inspection in July 2015 found two legal breaches in the safe area. At this inspection, inspectors said improvements had been made and the home was meeting the requirements. They still identified some areas to improve, including fluid recording, infection control checks, lighting and the tired condition of parts of the building.

What inspectors praised
  • Improved safety systems

    The home had addressed the medicine and risk-management problems identified at the previous inspection. Inspectors found medicines, risk assessments and equipment checks were being managed safely.

    “At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the service was now meeting the requirements.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff being patient, kind and respectful, while supporting privacy, choice and independence.

    “We observed warm and caring interactions between staff and people using the service.” from the report
  • Staff knew residents well

    Staff understood people's needs, preferences and changes in health. Handover arrangements helped staff share important information.

    “Staff knew people well and could tell us about their needs and what they enjoyed.” from the report
  • Approachable management

    The manager was experienced and visible. Residents, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team and staff worked well together.

    “Staff morale was good and staff told us that there was a good team who worked together.” from the report
  • Activities and community links

    Residents could take part in activities and community visits. The home supported people to maintain familiar relationships and interests.

    “People told us that they had good access to a range of interesting activities in which they could choose to participate.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Occasional waits for staff

    minor

    Some residents said they had to wait for help at busy times, although delays were usually described as short and inspectors saw call bells answered promptly.

    “Some people told us that they had to wait at busy times but understood that there were a lot of people who needed help and delays were not excessive.” from the report
  • Building condition and lighting

    minor

    Parts of the building looked tired and some corridors had poor lighting. The manager said upgrading work was planned or already underway.

    “The environment was tired in places and some of the lighting in corridors was low.” from the report
  • Fluid records

    needs fixing

    Fluid charts were not used consistently for people who were unwell or whose health was deteriorating. The manager agreed to act on this immediately.

    “Staff recorded in people's daily notes when people were offered drinks but were not consistently using fluid charts when people's health was deteriorating or they were unwell.” from the report
  • Infection control audits

    needs fixing

    The inspection found that infection control checks needed closer scrutiny. The home was recommended to seek advice on developing these audits.

    “We have recommended that they seek advice from a reputable source on developing infection control audits.” from the report
  • Some care plan detail

    minor

    Inspectors found that some care plans could give more information about diabetes and how it affected people, although staff knew residents well and risks were reduced.

    “There were some areas where further information could have been provided, such on diabetes and how it impacted on people” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now make sure fluid charts are completed when a resident is unwell or their health is deteriorating?
  2. 02What changes have been made to infection control audits since the inspection?
  3. 03What work has been completed to improve corridor lighting and the tired areas of the building?
  4. 04How long do residents usually wait for help at busy times, especially in the mornings?
  5. 05Are you currently providing nursing care, and if not, what care needs can you safely accept?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the home was registered to provide nursing care but was not providing it at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Hatherley Care Home Limited

3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Hatherley Care Home Limited →

  2. October 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Hatherley Care Home Limited →

  3. September 2015Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. December 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex

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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
Liz L., about Sithembiso N.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
Robert G., about Nechelle F.
See live-in carers near EssexProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.