CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hawthorn Bungalow
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using PPE safely, arranging testing and managing admissions and outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Hawthorn Bungalow was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
Inspectors visited on 24 February 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It focused on infection prevention and control in the care home.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, distancing, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment and outbreaks safely. They found the home clean and hygienic, and saw staff using protective equipment correctly.
The home had plans for people who were showing symptoms or had COVID-19. Staff tested and isolated new admissions, and activities were provided to reduce the effects of isolation.
This inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The Safe question was inspected but not rated, and the report does not provide ratings for the other four questions.
Infection control
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with staff using personal protective equipment correctly.
“The service was clean and hygienic, and staff were observed using personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly.” from the report
Outbreak planning
Plans were in place to care for people with symptoms or COVID-19 and to protect other residents during an outbreak.
“Suitable plans were in place to care for people who were symptomatic or COVID-19 positive and protect others living in the care home in the event of an outbreak.” from the report
Safe admissions
New admissions were tested and isolated, and admission assessments considered people's mental capacity.
“Staff routinely tested and isolated new admissions to help prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Support during isolation
The home provided meaningful activities to reduce the impact of isolation.
“To mitigate the impact of isolation, meaningful activities are provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are people who have COVID-19 symptoms or test positive cared for, and how are other residents protected?
- 02How are new admissions tested and isolated, and for how long?
- 03What meaningful activities are available when someone has to isolate?
- 04How often are staff trained in infection prevention and control, and how is their use of PPE checked?
- 05What arrangements are now in place for visitors, testing and managing any infection outbreak?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other quality questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clearer recording needed for end-of-life wishes.
Inspectors visited without notice on 17 and 18 June 2019. They observed care, spoke with staff and a visiting professional, reviewed care and medicine records, and later spoke with two relatives. People could not or chose not to speak with inspectors, so observations were also used.
The home was supporting eight people and had places for 10. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable training and detailed care plans. People were treated with kindness, supported to make choices and encouraged to be as independent as possible.
All five areas were rated Good. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in January 2017. Well-led improved from Requires improvement to Good. Inspectors recommended better recording of people's wishes and preferences for end-of-life care.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were organised and given safely and on time. Staff were trained and monitored in medicines practice.
“Medicines systems were organised, and people received their medicines on time and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with kindness, dignity and respect. Relatives also spoke positively about the care.
“We observed thoughtful and positive interactions between staff and people that demonstrated they knew people well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about food, activities and their rooms. Staff supported people to gain skills and be as independent as possible.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Improved leadership
The management team used audits, staff feedback and information from other professionals to identify and address improvements. The well-led rating improved from Requires improvement to Good.
“The senior team completed a range of audits monthly and actions were identified and addressed to bring about improvements.” from the report
End-of-life wishes not recorded
needs fixingThe care plans checked did not record people's wishes or preferences about care and treatment if their health deteriorated. Inspectors made a recommendation to improve this.
“However, when we looked at people's support plans we could not find any information related to any wishes or preferences people had about the care and treatment they would wish to receive if their health deteriorated.” from the report
Home larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for 10 people and was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design reduced the possible negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area.” from the report
- 01How will you record and regularly review my relative's wishes and preferences for end-of-life care?
- 02How does the size and design of the home affect people's privacy, choice, independence and daily activities?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's communication needs are understood if they cannot use speech?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you involve our family in reviews, decisions and any complaints?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous overall rating from January 2017 used as the starting point. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 2019 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 Hawthorn Bungalow
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 March 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.