CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hazeldene Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, risks were mostly assessed and managed, and medicines were generally administered safely, although some recording and fire-check issues were identified.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care from trained staff and were supported with nutrition, hydration, healthcare, mobility and their individual choices. Mental Capacity Act processes were followed where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report says its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report says its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits, monitoring and an improvement plan. People, relatives, staff and professionals said the management was approachable and acted on concerns.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and improvements since the previous inspection, but noted some records and safety checks needed attention.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. One inspector visited on 10 and 16 November 2022, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicine systems, good infection control arrangements and care plans that reflected people's needs.
People and relatives spoke positively about the home. Inspectors saw kind communication and found that people were supported with food, drink, healthcare, choice and consent.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach about risk records and governance. Inspectors found the required improvements had been made, so the home was no longer in breach. This inspection did not cover Caring or Responsive, so those ratings were carried over from the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave very positive feedback. Inspectors saw positive communication and people appeared comfortable and relaxed with staff.
“People and their family members gave us very positive feedback about the home and told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough consistent staff to meet people's needs. Care was provided in a calm and unhurried way.
“Staff were seen to have the time they required to provide people with responsive and effective care in a relaxed and unhurried way.” from the report
Food and drink
People were offered varied food based on their preferences. Staff monitored nutrition and hydration risks and provided alternatives when needed.
“People were supported to eat a varied and nutritious diet based on their individual preferences.” from the report
Improved management systems
The home had improved its risk records and governance systems since the last inspection. Audits and monitoring were being used to check quality and safety.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the necessary improvements and was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Fire system checks
needs fixingFire detection systems had usually been checked monthly rather than weekly for most of 2022. Weekly checks had started in October 2022.
“Fire detection systems had not always been checked weekly to ensure they were fully functioning.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure fire detection systems are checked every week, and can I see the latest records?
- 02How do you record the exact time medicines are given and the outcome of as-required medicines?
- 03How do you check that all staff follow bare-below-elbows guidance?
- 04How are laundry containers kept closed or separated from clean clothing?
- 05Can you show me the latest ratings and findings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected in this report?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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, June 2019
Hazeldene Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and activities were good, but records and management checks were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited without warning on 8 and 10 May 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management documents.
There had been clear improvements since the previous inspection. Staffing arrangements meant staff had more time with people. Medicines were stored and given more safely. Risks in the building, including the stairs and fire risks, had been addressed.
The main remaining problem was that records did not always accurately describe people's risks, needs and care. Management checks were in place but did not always identify and fix problems quickly. The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive, but Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led.
The previous rating was Inadequate and the home had been in special measures. It was removed from special measures after this inspection, but the provider was required to send an action plan and CQC said it would continue monitoring the home.
More time with people
Staffing arrangements had improved, so staff could spend more time with people instead of concentrating mainly on tasks.
“The deployment of staff had changed leading to staff being able to spend more time with people and working in a person centred way, rather than focusing on tasks to be completed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“Our observations of staff interactions with people showed that people were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.” from the report
Safer medicines
Medicines storage had improved. Staff who administered medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicines storage had improved and was now safe.” from the report
Activities and choice
People had activities every day and could choose whether to take part. Staff also spent time with people individually.
“Activities took place with people every day and staff encouraged people to participate.” from the report
Incomplete risk records
seriousSeveral people's risks and the actions needed to manage them were not recorded clearly. This could lead to inappropriate support, particularly when agency staff were working.
“We found multiple records where the risks for people had not been formally assessed and plans recorded to reduce these risks.” from the report
Management checks did not work well enough
seriousAudits and other checks had been introduced, but they did not always lead to prompt improvements. Some record problems had remained since the previous inspection.
“Systems of monitoring had been implemented including medicines audits, care plan audits, environmental audits and meetings. However not all of these were working effectively to drive prompt improvement.” from the report
Nutrition monitoring
needs fixingOne person had lost a significant amount of weight, but the risk had not been fully assessed or monitored and health professionals had not been contacted at the time inspectors checked.
“However, no contact had been made with external health care professionals, the registered manager was not aware of the weight loss and no monitoring of this person's intake had been started.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans were not consistently personalised. Some did not explain people's behaviour, needs or how staff should respond.
“Whilst care plans were in place the level of detail and personalisation within them was inconsistent.” from the report
- 01How are people's risks, including falls, skin damage, diabetes and weight loss, assessed and kept up to date?
- 02How do agency staff find accurate information about each person's needs and risks before providing care?
- 03What checks now show that care records are complete and that problems are fixed promptly?
- 04How do you monitor weight loss and make sure health professionals are contacted when needed?
- 05What personalised plans are in place for people who may show distress or behaviours that staff need to manage?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five CQC questions, after the previous Inadequate rating and special measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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 Hazeldene Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Hazeldene Residential Care Home →
- June 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Hazeldene Residential Care Home →
- February 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.