Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Hazeldown Care Home

Requires improvementpublished 25 February 2020, 6 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
People felt safe and staff usually managed risks in practice, but risk assessments did not always identify risks or explain clearly how staff should respond. Staffing assessments were not being used effectively, and there were gaps in records for topical medicines.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed, staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, health care and decisions about their care.
Caring?
Good
Staff were kind, respected people's individuality and dignity, and encouraged people to make choices and become more independent.
Responsive?
Good
Care was personalised and based on people's preferences. People were involved in care planning, activities and decisions, and complaints and smaller concerns were addressed.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The home had a positive, person-centred culture and good communication, but its quality checks were too limited. Records and care plan audits did not always give an accurate or detailed picture of people's needs.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2020

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but weaknesses in risk records, staffing checks and quality monitoring.

This was an unannounced inspection on 14 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with five people, six staff members and three visiting health professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.

People generally felt safe and received their medicines safely. Staff were described as kind, skilled and familiar with people's needs. People received personalised support, good food and help to stay independent and access health services.

The home needed to improve how it recorded and managed risks. Risk assessments did not always contain enough information, staffing checks were not being used effectively, and some medicines records had gaps. Management checks were also too limited to identify and correct these issues reliably.

The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, as did Safe and Well-led. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. CQC said it would discuss improvements with the provider, work with the local authority to monitor progress and return to inspect again.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People said staff were caring and supportive. Staff knew people's personalities and adapted their approach to individual needs.

    “People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well and encouraged their independence.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    People were involved in their care and had choices about how they lived. Staff supported individual interests and helped people maintain their independence.

    “People received individualised and person-centred care that met their needs and preferences, this included the provision of appropriate activities.” from the report
  • Staff training and health support

    Staff had access to a range of training and regular supervision. People were supported to access health professionals and manage health conditions.

    “Staff were able to access a range of training which included both face to face training from the provider's own training co-ordinator as well as e-learning.” from the report
  • Positive culture

    People and staff spoke positively about the management team. There was good teamwork and communication, with links to local community activities.

    “There was a positive person-centred culture in the service.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Risk records were incomplete

    serious

    Some important risks were not recorded or explained clearly enough for staff. This included people who accessed the community independently and a person showing distressed behaviour.

    “Risk assessments did not always identify risk or provide enough written guidance for staff on how to manage identified risks.” from the report
  • Staffing checks needed improvement

    needs fixing

    The staffing tool was not being used effectively to decide how many staff were needed. A concern was raised about having only two staff during some afternoons.

    “A staffing dependency tool was completed for each person in the service, however this was not being used effectively to help inform staffing levels in the service.” from the report
  • Quality monitoring was too weak

    needs fixing

    Audits were often simple tick lists and did not check the quality or accuracy of care records in enough detail. Some records were out of date or did not fully explain people's needs.

    “There was a lack of effective quality monitoring systems in the service.” from the report
  • Some medicines records had gaps

    needs fixing

    Medicines were managed safely overall, but records for topical medicines were not complete. The management team had already identified this and had a plan to address it.

    “People's medicines administration charts were completed accurately, although we identified gaps in the records for the administration of topical medicines.” from the report
  • Some areas needed updating

    minor

    The home was clean, but dirty grouting and rust on moving and handling equipment increased the risk of infection control problems. The manager later said these areas had been dealt with.

    “Some of areas of the home could benefit from updating and increased the risk of infection control issues.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have you made to ensure every person's risks, including community access and distressed behaviour, are clearly recorded?
  2. 02How do you now decide whether there are enough staff during afternoons and at other busy times?
  3. 03How are you checking that care plans contain accurate and detailed information about each person's needs?
  4. 04Have the gaps in records for topical medicines been fully resolved, and how is this checked now?
  5. 05What progress has been made since the inspection, and when is the next CQC follow-up expected?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says Safe and Well-led remained Requires Improvement while Effective, Caring and Responsive remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2020 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2019

Hazeldown Care Home rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but safety risks and weak oversight remained.

Inspectors visited without notice on 13 November 2018. They spoke with eight people, the registered manager and four care staff. They checked care plans, medicines, staffing, recruitment records, audits and other records.

The home had improved since the previous inspection. There were enough staff, staff training and support had improved, and people received caring and responsive support. People were helped to stay healthy, make choices, remain independent and take part in activities and community life.

The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safety was rated Requires Improvement because some environmental risks had not been assessed. Well-led was also Requires Improvement because management checks had not found these risks and financial safeguards were not strong enough.

The home was in breach of Regulation 17 about good governance. Inspectors said one previous breach had been repeated, but earlier concerns about staffing and notifications had been addressed.

What inspectors praised
  • Enough staff

    Staffing levels had improved and were found to meet people's assessed needs. The earlier staffing breach had been addressed.

    “Staffing levels were appropriate to people's needs and everyone had a regular review of their needs.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People said staff were respectful, patient and supportive. Inspectors observed staff promoting dignity, choice and wellbeing.

    “People were supported by staff who demonstrated empathy and treated people with respect.” from the report
  • Health and food support

    People were supported to access health professionals and manage their health needs. They had choices about food and were involved in menu planning.

    “People were supported to stay healthy and access health services when required.” from the report
  • More activities and independence

    The home had made clear progress in helping people go out, use the community, learn skills and pursue their interests.

    “People had opportunities and were given encouragement to go out and participate in the wider community and do things they enjoyed.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unassessed environmental risks

    serious

    Risks from internal and external steps, hot uncovered radiators and some windows had not been fully assessed or controlled. Inspectors said these issues could result in avoidable harm.

    “There were still areas of concern regarding unassessed risks and lack of management oversight of this.” from the report
  • Weak management checks

    serious

    Provider visits were not recorded in enough detail, and there was no evidence that records, incidents or night care were properly checked. This contributed to the breach of Regulation 17.

    “This resulted in a repeated breach of Regulation 17. Good governance. Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014.” from the report
  • Medicines given when needed

    needs fixing

    Instructions for some medicines given when needed did not explain clearly why they should be used or what staff should try first. Inspectors raised this with the manager.

    “Medicine guidance for prescribed when necessary medicines (PRN) was not specific enough.” from the report
  • Care plan detail

    needs fixing

    Care plans did not always explain people's routines, needs or signs of a good or bad day in enough detail. This could make it harder for unfamiliar staff or hospital staff to provide consistent care.

    “Care plans were not very descriptive nor gave a clear account of a person's needs, regular routines or how staff would recognise if a person was having a 'good' or 'bad day'.” from the report
  • Financial safeguards

    needs fixing

    The arrangements for managing money for people who could not manage it themselves lacked external checks and financial risk assessments.

    “The arrangements in place to manage people's individual finances, where they could not do this themselves, were not sufficiently robust and there were insufficient safeguards.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What risk assessments and control measures have now been put in place for the stairs, hot radiators and first-floor windows?
  2. 02How do you decide when medicines prescribed to reduce anxiety should be given, and how do you record what staff tried first?
  3. 03How are provider visits, incidents, near misses and night care now checked and recorded?
  4. 04What independent checks protect people's money, and are financial risk assessments now in place?
  5. 05How have care plans been updated to describe people's routines, triggers and signs of a good or bad day?

This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care provided, and all five key questions were inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Hazeldown Care Home

4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. February 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Hazeldown Care Home →

  2. January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Hazeldown Care Home →

  3. July 2017Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk

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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.

See live-in carers near NorfolkProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.