CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hazel House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, suitable risk assessments, safe staffing and recruitment, and safe medicines processes. Infection control, fire safety and learning from incidents were also checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reflected in care. Staff were trained and supported, people received suitable food and healthcare, and the home was found to be working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit, so no new rating was given. Inspectors did observe respectful and supportive interactions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit, so no new rating was given. The report did identify limited activities and a risk of social isolation.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff understood their roles, quality checks were carried out, and people, relatives and staff were involved through reviews, meetings and surveys. Inspectors also found that the service learned from incidents.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, but opportunities for social engagement were not always provided.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 and 17 May 2023. One inspector and one Expert by Experience visited. They spoke with five people, staff and managers, reviewed three people's care records and two staff files, and later spoke with seven relatives and health professionals.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received their medicines and healthcare support, and were supported by staff who understood their needs and choices.
Inspectors found a risk of social isolation because activities and social opportunities were limited or not always recorded. They made a recommendation about this. Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this visit, so the report does not give new ratings for those areas.
Protection from harm
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. People's risks were assessed and reviewed, with plans to reduce harm while supporting independence.
“People received safe care and they were supported by staff who knew how to protect them from harm.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could choose how to spend their time, where to spend it and what and when to eat. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way and sought consent.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw a calm atmosphere and respectful support. Personal care was provided discreetly, protecting people's dignity and privacy.
“There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home where staff were respectful and supportive in their interactions with people.” from the report
Limited social opportunities
needs fixingInspectors found limited outdoor activities and shortfalls in recording social engagement. They said people were at risk of social isolation and recommended that the provider seek advice about activities.
“We found people were at risk of social isolation because the provider did not always ensure people had opportunities for social engagement.” from the report
Food preferences
minorMost feedback about food was positive, but one relative raised concerns about food preferences. The manager said the menu would be reviewed with people and relatives.
“We received negative feedback on food preferences from a relative which we discussed with the registered manager.” from the report
- 01What regular activities and outdoor opportunities are now available, and how do you check whether each person is taking part and enjoying them?
- 02How have you acted on the recommendation about reducing social isolation?
- 03How are people's food preferences recorded, reviewed and reflected in the current menu?
- 04How will my relative's risks, choices, medicines and healthcare needs be reviewed after they move in?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; the overall rating remained Good using the previous ratings for the key questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 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, October 2018
Hazel House was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one concern about communication with a family.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 7 September 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, managers and support staff. They reviewed care files, risk assessments, medicine records, staff files, rotas, audits and incident records.
They found that people were safe, supported by enough staff and given their medicines safely. Staff were trained and care was planned around each person's needs. People were treated kindly, involved in their care and supported to take part in activities and go out.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection also rated it Good, so the overall rating did not change. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Personalised care
Care plans described people's health needs, preferences, routines and social needs. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Comprehensive care plans were in place for people which detailed their care needs and preferences” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff spending time with people and treating them with kindness, dignity and respect.
“We observed positive and caring interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to support people, including extra staff for outings and healthcare appointments. Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely.
“People were supported by enough staff to meet their individual needs and promote person centred care.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to go out, follow their interests, help with meals and take part in household tasks.
“People were supported to be independent and gain new skills.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits, staff meetings, residents' meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements.
“Regular auditing and monitoring of the quality of care was taking place.” from the report
Communication with family
minorOne relative raised concerns about communication with family. The team leader said a meeting would be arranged to discuss the issues.
“one relative raised some concerns regarding communication with family to the inspection team.” from the report
- 01How will you keep our family informed about changes in our relative's care and health?
- 02How do you review risk assessments when a person's needs or behaviour changes?
- 03What activities and community outings would be available for our relative?
- 04How would you support our relative's specific health needs, such as epilepsy, diabetes or mental health needs?
- 05How are families involved in care planning and review meetings?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the shorter format was used because the overall Good rating had not changed since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 2018 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 Hazel House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.