CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hatt House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe infection control systems, enough staff, safe recruitment, managed risks and safe medicines practice. This followed improvements after earlier infection control concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reflected in care plans. Staff were trained and supported, people received suitable food and healthcare, and the home followed mental capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw staff respond compassionately and found that staff knew people's communication needs, preferences and routines.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported to maintain relationships, but relatives gave mixed views about whether there were enough activities and outdoor opportunities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had open leadership, clear responsibilities and quality checks. Managers and staff had worked to improve infection control and had strengthened the auditing system.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Hatt House was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with some mixed feedback about activities.
Inspectors visited on 27 and 28 July 2021 without warning. They spoke with two people, 12 relatives and nine staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment and supervision files, training information and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care plans, kind care and support for people's choices, health and relationships.
The inspection followed concerns about infection control found in January 2021. The home had previously breached Regulation 12 and received a warning notice. At this visit, inspectors found that infection control had improved and the home was no longer in breach.
There was some mixed feedback from relatives about activities. The home provided dementia-friendly activities and social contact, but some relatives felt there could be more activities and more opportunities to go outside.
Improved infection control
The home had addressed the infection control problems found at the previous inspection. Inspectors were assured that PPE, visiting, testing, cleaning and outbreak arrangements were being managed safely.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff reassure a distressed person and found that people were treated with dignity and as individuals.
“We saw many examples of kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, interests, preferences and support needs. Staff could explain how people liked their care to be delivered.
“Care plans clearly illustrated people's needs and wishes and were extremely detailed and person centred.” from the report
Good leadership and monitoring
The management team encouraged staff to speak openly and used audits to identify and address problems. New monthly management audits had been introduced since the previous inspection.
“The service was well led and had an open culture which encouraged communication and learning.” from the report
Previous infection control failure
seriousAt the January 2021 inspection, infection control risks were not managed effectively and people were placed at risk of harm. Inspectors found this had been corrected by this inspection, but families may want to check that the improvements continue.
“At our last inspection the provider had failed to ensure that risks relating to infection control were being effectively managed and this placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Mixed views about activities
minorSome relatives felt there were not enough activities, including opportunities for walks or fresh air. The home provided activities such as reminiscence books and singing, and said it hoped to increase activities as COVID-19 restrictions eased.
“However, we received mixed feedback from relatives about activities available for people.” from the report
- 01What infection control checks and staff training are now carried out, and how do you make sure the improvements found in July 2021 are maintained?
- 02What activities would be available for my relative, including opportunities to go outside or take walks?
- 03How would you adapt activities for someone who cannot concentrate for long periods or has dementia?
- 04How often would my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how would our family be involved?
- 05How are medicines audited and checked to make sure they are given at the right time and recorded accurately?
This was an unannounced first rated inspection covering all five key questions, including a specific check of infection prevention and control; the January 2021 inspection had been targeted at Safe and Well-led only. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but infection control needed immediate improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 and 21 January 2021. It followed concerns about infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic. One inspector spoke with staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing, safety and infection-control records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found problems with face-mask use, handling and disposal of protective equipment, and clinical waste bins. They said people were at increased risk of harm, although they found no evidence that anyone had been harmed.
Inspectors also found kind staff who knew people well, enough staff on duty, safe recruitment, well-managed medicines and good risk assessments. Relatives spoke positively about the care, management and communication during the pandemic.
The service was inspected but not rated overall because this was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. The home had a new provider from December 2019, and the last rating under the previous provider was Good.
Kind, familiar staff
Staff knew people well and provided person-centred care. Relatives and inspectors described people as comfortable and happy with staff.
“People received care that was person-centred, and staff knew people well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine records showed that people received medicines as prescribed. Storage, ‘when required’ guidance and audits were also checked.
“Medicines were managed safely. People's medicine administration records (MAR) were completed when doses of medicines were given.” from the report
Risk management
Care records included detailed assessments and plans for risks such as falls, moving and handling, pressure areas and nutrition.
“Detailed risk management plans provided staff with the information they needed to manage risk and guidance for staff about how to support people to reduce the risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found suitable staffing levels on the inspection day and safe recruitment checks, including references and criminal-record checks.
“We found adequate staffing levels on the day of inspection, and rotas confirmed suitable numbers of staff on shift to support people and meet their needs.” from the report
Family communication
Relatives said they received updates about their family members during the pandemic. Staff also helped people keep in touch through video calls and photographs.
“Relatives told us they were kept up to date with relevant information regarding their loved ones' wellbeing during the Covid-19 pandemic.” from the report
Infection-control practice
seriousInspectors found masks worn incorrectly, no designated areas for putting on and removing protective equipment, and used protective equipment placed in general waste. These problems increased the risk of infection spreading.
“People were not always protected from the risk and spread of infection.” from the report
Quality checks did not identify the problem
needs fixingThe home had monitoring systems, but they had not ensured that current infection-control guidance was followed. Inspectors recommended stronger governance arrangements.
“We recommend the providers governance systems are strengthened to help assess and monitor infection, prevention and control.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the use, carrying and disposal of protective equipment after this inspection?
- 02Are there now enough clinical waste bins in entrance areas and communal areas?
- 03How do managers check that staff follow current infection-control guidance, including wearing masks correctly?
- 04What was the outcome of the warning notice, and has CQC carried out a follow-up inspection?
- 05How will you tell families promptly if there is an infection outbreak or a change in visiting arrangements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led following infection-control concerns; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the service was not given an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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 Hatt House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 2019.
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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.