CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hawkhurst House
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found the home was safe, but staff experience, leadership and some interactions needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection after concerns about safeguarding, staffing, medicines and oversight. Two inspectors visited, spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, medicines were usually managed safely, risks were assessed, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory. People generally said they felt safe.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Some newer staff did not know people well enough, and there were no routine competency checks for most staff. The home did not have a registered manager, and some interactions did not meet people's social needs.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The home had started actions, including creating a coaching and assessment role, but inspectors said it was too early to know whether these changes worked.
People felt safe
People were positive about their experiences and told inspectors they felt safe living at the home.
“People using the home were positive about their experiences and told us they felt safe living there.” from the report
Medicines and risk management
Medicines were usually managed safely, with checks to find and address mistakes. Risk assessments gave staff guidance about keeping people safe.
“Effective checking systems allowed any errors or omissions to be quickly identified.” from the report
Work with other professionals
The home made referrals to health and social care professionals when people needed extra support. It also worked with hospice, hospital discharge and social services teams.
“The manager worked with other professionals to support people to stay as safe and well as possible.” from the report
Audits identified problems
The home's audits had found the concerns raised during the inspection. Action plans had been put in place to address them.
“Audits were comprehensive and effective; they had identified the concerns found at this inspection.” from the report
Staff interactions
needs fixingInspectors saw some poor interactions. One person asked for food, was initially refused and was then supported with very little engagement.
“However, we found some interactions between staff and the people they supported were poor and visibly did not meet people's expectations or social needs.” from the report
Staff experience and checks
needs fixingStaff turnover had been high and some newer staff were not familiar with the people they supported. Most staff did not have competency assessments to confirm their skills in practice.
“other than for nursing staff and staff trained to give medicines, there were no competency assessments of staff.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home did not meet the registration requirement for a registered manager. An interim manager was running the service while recruitment was under way.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Safeguarding notification
needs fixingOn one occasion, information about a safeguarding matter was not passed to the manager as required. This delayed a notification to CQC, although the oversight was later found and corrected.
“On one occasion, this resulted in a delayed statutory notification to CQC and could have delayed the manager taking required action to reduce risk.” from the report
- 01Is a permanent registered manager now in post, and has an application been submitted to CQC?
- 02How do you assess the skills of new staff before they work independently with residents?
- 03What has been done to reduce staff turnover and help staff get to know residents?
- 04How are safeguarding concerns now reported promptly to the manager and to CQC when required?
- 05What evidence can you show that the new coaching, mentoring and competency assessment arrangements are working?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and previous ratings for those areas were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that the designated care setting had good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 October 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures because the home had been identified as a designated care setting for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 status.
Inspectors found a separate entrance, self-contained bedrooms, a separate staff and health professional car park, and an outside balcony. Communal areas were large enough for social distancing, and equipment and linen had been planned for the designated care setting.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infection, using personal protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing admissions and visitors, and keeping its infection control policy up to date. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Separate designated area
The designated care setting had a separate entrance and a separate car park intended for staff and health professionals using it.
“There was a separate entrance to the setting accessible from the elevated car park.” from the report
Self-contained bedrooms
Bedrooms in the designated care setting were self-contained.
“Bedrooms on the designated care setting were self-contained.” from the report
Space for distancing
The setting had its own balcony, and inspectors found the communal areas were large enough for social distancing.
“The communal areas were large enough to enable people to social distance.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had good infection prevention and control arrangements for the designated care setting.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Is the designated care setting still arranged with a separate entrance and self-contained bedrooms?
- 02How are visitors currently prevented from catching or spreading infections?
- 03How does the home arrange testing for people using the service and staff?
- 04How are admissions managed safely when someone arrives from hospital with a positive COVID-19 status?
- 05How does the home keep its infection prevention and control policy up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures for the proposed designated care setting; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 2020 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 Hawkhurst House
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2017.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.