CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Haunton Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicine systems, appropriate safeguarding procedures and effective infection control. Some care plans and records were not fully accurate or complete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health needs, training needs and dietary requirements were supported. Inspectors found some discrepancies in care records, but these were addressed during the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit, so its previous rating carried over.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit, so its previous rating carried over.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems had improved but needed strengthening. There was no registered manager, and some checks had not identified gaps in care planning and record keeping.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Haunton Hall is rated Good overall; inspectors found safer, more effective care, but records and management systems still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 4 and 11 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicine records and management documents.
The home had made significant improvements since the previous inspection. Medicines were managed much more safely, staffing was sufficient, infection control measures were in place and people told inspectors they felt safe and received effective care.
There were still some gaps in care plans and records. The home did not have a registered manager, and its checks did not always identify these problems. The well-led rating remained Requires Improvement.
The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good. This inspection only assessed Safe, Effective and Well-led. The ratings for Caring and Responsive were not reassessed and carried over from the previous inspection.
Safer medicines
Medicine management had improved significantly. Staff were trained and checked as competent, and the medicine stocks inspected matched the administration records.
“Medicine stocks we checked correlated with medicine administration records.” from the report
People felt safe
People said staff responded quickly when they needed help, including at night. Staff also knew people's needs and risks.
“When I press my buzzer, it doesn't take them long to come, less than a minute I'd say.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received relevant training and ongoing checks of their skills. People told inspectors staff knew what they were doing.
“Staff received relevant training and received on-going competency checks to ensure they were skilled and knowledgeable about people they supported.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with outside health professionals and supported people to access healthcare in a timely way.
“The management team and staff worked well with other agencies and professionals to provide additional and specialised support for people where necessary.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had acted on the previous inspection findings. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations identified previously.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Care records were not always accurate
needs fixingSome care plans did not accurately reflect people's needs, and some records were incomplete. This could mean staff did not always have the most up-to-date information.
“Some records had not always been fully completed.” from the report
Management arrangements
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. The provider was recruiting, while the acting management arrangements were still being developed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Governance checks needed strengthening
needs fixingAudits and management systems had improved, but they had not always found the shortfalls in care plans and records.
“Some of the systems and processes had not always been effective in identifying shortfalls we found on inspection.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorSome people liked the food, while others preferred meals cooked fresh on site and did not like the available choices. Management was asking people about their preferences.
“Other people said they preferred the meals when they were cooked fresh on-site and did not like the choices available to them with the current meal arrangements.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home while there is no registered manager?
- 02How do you check that every person's care plan accurately reflects their current needs?
- 03What has changed to prevent incomplete records from being missed by audits?
- 04How are residents' views about the food and meal choices being acted on?
- 05What further staffing is being planned for the units supporting people with dementia?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, mainly to check action from the previous warning notice; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 2023 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, October 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in infection control, medicines oversight and management, and issued a warning notice.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 July 2022. Inspectors looked only at whether the home was safe and well-led. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home had enough staff and people generally said they felt safe and received medicines on time. Staff knew people's needs, safeguarding procedures were in place, and the home followed safe visiting guidance.
However, some areas were unclean or needed repair. There were problems with storing linen and protective equipment, medicine stock records did not always match, and some care plans lacked important health information. Audits did not reliably find or track these problems.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement. The home had not had a registered manager since July 2021, although an interim manager had started making changes.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels and staff skills matched people's needs. People generally said they did not wait long for support.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe at the home. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to respond to abuse concerns.
“People told us they were safe living at Haunton Hall.” from the report
Staff knew people's needs
Staff could explain people's risks and the actions needed to reduce avoidable harm. The home also worked with other professionals.
“Staff did however know people's needs well and could tell us about people's risks and actions staff needed to take to mitigate the risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Changes had started
The interim manager had begun reviewing incidents, improving systems and involving people and staff in changes.
“The manager had begun to make changes to improve systems and told us they wanted to share ways the whole staff team could improve care practices.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome touch points were unclean, parts of the building needed repair, and clean and used items were stored in ways that risked cross-contamination. This was a breach of Regulation 15.
“Some areas of the home, including frequent touch points were unclean and had collected a lot of dust and debris.” from the report
Medicine stock records
seriousElectronic medicine stock records did not always match manual checks. Inspectors could not be sure that people would always have enough medicine available.
“The electronic records of the amount of medicines in stock did always not correlate with manual stock checks completed for people's individual medicines.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits were not always completed or effective. They did not reliably identify problems or show who had completed corrective actions. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
“Some audits had not been routinely completed and where they had, these did not always identify the issues we found on inspection.” from the report
Incomplete care plans
needs fixingSome care plans did not include enough information about health risks, including diabetes. Inspectors suggested moving important information into care plans so staff could find it quickly.
“Some care plans lacked detail about people's care and treatment, such as diabetes.” from the report
Unclear management structure
needs fixingThe home had been without a registered manager for about a year. Some people were unsure who was in charge or how to report concerns.
“There had not been a registered manager in place since 13 July 2021, which is a regulatory registration requirement.” from the report
- 01What has been done to keep touch points, corridors and other areas clean, and to repair damaged doors, walls and handrails?
- 02How do you now check medicine stocks and make sure electronic records match the medicines available?
- 03Who is the registered manager now, and how can families report concerns?
- 04How are care plans checked to make sure conditions such as diabetes and related warning signs are recorded clearly?
- 05How do you record responsibility for improvement actions and check that they have been completed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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 Haunton Hall
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 October 2013.
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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.