CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hawkinge House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staff understood safeguarding, infection controls were in place and there were enough staff. Medicine fridge temperature records were improved but were still not consistent.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not looked at during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not looked at during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were more personal and up to date, and staff supported people with activities and communication needs. Some relatives still felt activities and responses to décor concerns could be improved.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider had introduced audits, action plans and regular management checks. However, communication with relatives remained poor in some cases, the manager was not registered with CQC, and the new systems needed more time to become established.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, responsive care, but leadership and communication were not consistently good.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 15 February 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, training, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Responsive. People were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were mostly managed safely, and there were enough staff. Care plans had become more personal and staff supported people with activities and relationships.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led, so the overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Communication with relatives was still not reliable, and some reported concerns were not dealt with quickly. The provider had improved systems, but inspectors said these changes needed more time to become established.
At the previous inspection, there had been two breaches of regulations. Inspectors found enough improvement this time for the home to no longer be in breach, but said good leadership had not yet been consistent over time.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to report concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe in the service.” from the report
Risk management improved
Care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed and gave staff clear instructions. Staff could explain people's individual risks and the actions needed to reduce them.
“Risk assessments were comprehensive and contained enough information to enable staff to provide safe care for people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences and life histories. Staff had improved their knowledge of people's needs, likes and dislikes.
“Peoples' care plans were personalised and contained information about their likes, dislikes and personal preferences.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the provider had measures for preventing and managing infections, including safe visiting, testing and use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Reported missing items
needs fixingRelatives reported that toiletries, toothpaste and hearing aid batteries went missing. They said the provider had not taken action and the problem had not improved.
“Most relatvies reported things going missing, such as toiletries, toothpaste and hearing aid batteries, and although they had reported this to the provider, they had not taken any action and there had been no improvement.” from the report
Leadership not yet established
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with CQC when inspectors visited, although an application process had started. New quality systems were in place but had not had enough time to become established.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the CQC had not received an application at the time of this inspection, although the manager had started the process.” from the report
Medicine fridge records
minorMedicine management was safe overall, but fridge temperature records were still not completed consistently.
“At this inspection this had improved but was still not consistent.” from the report
- 01How are you now making sure relatives are told promptly about hospital admissions, visiting changes and changes in their relative's condition?
- 02What action have you taken about reports of missing toiletries, toothpaste and hearing aid batteries?
- 03Has the manager now been registered with CQC, and who is legally responsible for the service?
- 04How do you check that medicine fridge temperatures are recorded consistently?
- 05What progress has been made with the home improvement and refurbishment plans?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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
Hawkinge House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 14 January 2022. Inspectors gave the home one hour's notice and checked infection prevention and control because it was being used for people leaving hospital with COVID-19.
Inspectors found a separate, self-contained area for people who had tested positive. It had its own entrance, staff team, changing facilities, treatment room, medicines trolley and equipment. The home was clean, had enough protective equipment, and staff were using it correctly.
The inspection covered safety in relation to infection prevention and control only. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Separate COVID-19 area
The designated area had its own entrance and a separate staff team. This reduced the need for staff and residents to pass through other parts of the home.
“The designated area had a separate entrance for people and staff.” from the report
Self-contained facilities
The designated area had its own treatment room, medicines trolley and other equipment. Bedrooms had private bathrooms and access to an outdoor balcony.
“The designated setting was self-contained with its own treatment room, medicines trolley and other equipment that may be required.” from the report
Clean environment and PPE
Inspectors found the home clean, with hand sanitising points and enough protective equipment for current and future demand. Staff were using the equipment correctly.
“The service looked clean and had hand sanitising areas throughout.” from the report
Visits and testing
Inspectors were assured that the home was facilitating visits in line with current guidance and providing testing for residents and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection control arrangements being managed now, including any separate areas for people with infections?
- 02How do you manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19?
- 03Do staff still have access to enough protective equipment, testing and changing facilities?
- 04How are visits being arranged and supported under the current guidance?
- 05How would you safely admit someone from hospital who had tested positive for COVID-19?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control for the designated COVID-19 care setting; the home was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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 Hawkinge House
9 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- April 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 April 2011.
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.