CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Haydon-Mayer
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some care plans did not clearly explain how to manage risks, and medicines were not always managed or recorded safely. Staffing, recruitment, safeguarding and infection control arrangements were found to be satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's choices, preferences and end of life wishes. Staff supported activities, communication, relationships and complaints well.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home's audits and oversight did not identify problems with care plans, medicines and capacity assessments. The home did have an open culture and involved people, relatives and staff in improvements.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines management, unclear care guidance and weak quality checks, although care was responsive.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 April 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found unclear or conflicting guidance in some care plans, medicines were not always managed safely, and audits had not found these problems.
Responsive was rated Good. People were supported according to their choices, staff knew people well, activities were available and complaints were handled appropriately. People and relatives said they felt safe and were positive about the care.
The home had breached Regulation 12 on safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 on good governance. CQC asked for an action plan and said it would monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, including DBS checks, had been completed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and end of life wishes. Staff knew people well and supported them in ways that suited them.
“Care plans were personalised and included people's end of life wishes and support needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered group and individual activities, including activities for people who stayed in their rooms. People were supported to maintain relationships and take part in interests.
“There was a range of activities including group and individual activities for everyone to take part in.” from the report
Open communication
Relatives said they were informed when needs changed or incidents happened. People and relatives knew how to complain and felt concerns would be addressed.
“Relatives told us they were kept informed when their loved ones needs changed and if there had been an incident or accident.” from the report
Unclear risk guidance
seriousSome care plans gave conflicting or incomplete instructions about mobility, oxygen and catheter care. This could make it harder for staff to support people safely and consistently.
“Potential risks to people's health and welfare had been assessed but there was not always detailed and consistent guidance for staff to mitigate the risks.” from the report
Medicines not always safe
seriousInstructions for when required medicines were not always accurate or tailored to the person. Some administration records also did not show medicines being given at the correct times.
“Medicines had not always been managed safely.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's audits and oversight did not identify the problems found during the inspection. The home also failed to identify one incident that should have been reported to CQC until after the inspection.
“Quality and assurance systems were not effective.” from the report
Capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments were recorded inaccurately, including when people's ability to decide could change. Inspectors said this had not affected people's daily support.
“Staff had not completed some assessments accurately.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the instructions for when required medicines, including medicines for anxiety and constipation, should be given?
- 02How do you now check that medicines are given at the correct times and that records accurately show when they were given?
- 03How do you make sure care plans give clear, consistent instructions for mobility, oxygen therapy and catheter care?
- 04What changes have you made to your audits so they identify problems with care plans, medicines and capacity assessments?
- 05How do you assess and record a person's capacity when their ability to decide may change during the day?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected, and the overall rating also used ratings from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
The inspection took place without notice on 8 December 2020. It was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus outbreak, focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, and had arrangements for testing, admissions and visitors.
Staff had extra training in using protective equipment. Furniture was moved to support social distancing, and people were helped to keep in touch with relatives through calls and suitable visits.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for all five areas of care.
Protective equipment training
Staff received extra training and refresher training from nursing staff to help them use protective equipment correctly.
“Staff had received additional training in the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Social distancing
The home changed the layout of communal areas and encouraged people to spend time in their rooms to reduce contact.
“Staff had moved the furniture in the communal areas to support social distancing” from the report
Keeping families connected
People were supported to use phone and video calls. Garden visits were also arranged when appropriate, with visitors wearing protective equipment.
“People were supported to maintain relationships with their loved ones through the use of phone and video calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently kept from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How often do staff receive refresher training on using protective equipment?
- 03How are testing arrangements managed for residents and staff?
- 04What arrangements are used if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05Which areas of care have been assessed in the home's most recent full inspection?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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.
Every inspection of Haydon-Mayer
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 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.