CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hawksbury House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe medicines and caring staff, but weaknesses in staffing oversight, recruitment and governance created potential risks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. An inspector visited on 22 February 2023 and 23 March 2023. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed records about safety and management.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and well-led were also Requires Improvement. Staff supported people with medicines, food, drink and healthcare, so effective care was rated Good.
Inspectors found that staff were not always deployed effectively, recruitment checks were incomplete and management did not identify some safety issues quickly enough. These included incorrectly stored PPE, broken bathroom bins and some restricted areas being left unlocked.
The inspection found a breach of Regulation 17 on good governance. The provider had started a more structured quality assurance system, but CQC said more time was needed to show lasting improvement. Caring and responsive were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings carried over.
Medicines
Medicines were managed safely and records showed people received them when needed.
“Medicines were managed safely. People confirmed they received their medicines on time.” from the report
Staff support
Staff had the training and supervision needed for their roles, and staff said management support was available.
“Staff were supported and received the training they needed. Records showed one to one supervisions were done regularly and training was up to date.” from the report
Safeguarding
Safeguarding concerns were referred to the local authority and investigated. People and most relatives said they felt safe and received good care.
“Safeguarding concerns had been referred to the local authority safeguarding team and investigated.” from the report
Staff deployment
seriousStaffing numbers were at the level the provider had assessed, but staff were not always deployed where needed. This affected support with hydration and supervision.
“Although staffing levels were at the level the provider had assessed, there were times when people did not receive the support they needed.” from the report
Quality oversight
seriousManagement checks did not reliably identify or manage risks. Visits by the provider were not recorded clearly, and the improvement plan lacked deadlines and named responsibility.
“Systems were not effective in identifying and managing risks to the safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report
Mental capacity decisions
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not specific to the decision being made, and some had not been completed.
“Some best interest decisions did not follow the requirements of the MCA and in some cases had not been completed.” from the report
Activities and engagement
needs fixingThere were no activities during the inspection visits, and staff were expected to provide activities alongside care duties when the activity co-ordinator was absent.
“There were no activities taking place during our visits to the home.” from the report
Infection control and security
minorSome PPE was stored incorrectly, some bathroom bin pedals were broken and some restricted areas were unlocked. The issues were dealt with during the inspection.
“Some PPE was not stored appropriately and the foot pedals on some bins were broken. This posed a small risk of cross-contamination.” from the report
- 01How are staff deployed now to make sure people receive timely help with drinks, supervision and other care needs?
- 02What checks do you now complete on every new staff member's full employment history?
- 03How do you check that mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are specific, lawful and completed before care decisions are made?
- 04What is the current programme of activities, and who provides activities when the activity co-ordinator is not present?
- 05What actions have been completed since the inspection to improve governance, infection control and the security of restricted areas?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; 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, May 2022
Hawksbury House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly good infection controls, but were only somewhat assured about the premises' layout and hygiene.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 22 April 2022. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found that visits, admissions, social distancing, personal protective equipment, testing and outbreak arrangements were being managed safely. A visiting pod was available, and people who could not isolate had access to a separate lounge.
The home was rated inspected but not rated. Inspectors were somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene practices of the premises, and signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
Safe visiting
The home had a visiting pod and checks to help prevent visitors with COVID-19 from entering.
“People and their relatives were kept safe during visits. A visiting pod was available.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
Staff were seen using personal protective equipment correctly during the inspection.
“Staff were observed wearing PPE correctly during the inspection.” from the report
Outbreak arrangements
People who could not isolate had access to a separate lounge, helping to keep them apart from others during the outbreak.
“During the outbreak people with COVID-19, that were unable to isolate, were able to use a lounge separate from other people living at the service.” from the report
Updated infection policy
The home had risk assessments and policies in place, and its infection control policy had recently been updated.
“Risk assessments and policies were in place to help keep people safe, the infection control policy had recently been updated in line with latest guidance.” from the report
Layout and hygiene
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured about the safety of the premises' layout and hygiene practices. The provider was signposted to resources to develop its approach.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the layout and hygiene practices since inspectors were only somewhat assured about them?
- 02How does the visiting pod work now, and what checks are made before visitors enter?
- 03How does the home manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what effect do these have on people's care?
- 04How often is the infection prevention and control policy reviewed and updated?
- 05How are people tested for COVID-19 and how are the results used to manage outbreaks?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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 Hawksbury House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 April 2016.
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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Gateshead
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 £950 to £1,240 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.