CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hazelford Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, recruitment and infection control were managed safely, although some emergency plans and as-needed medicines guidance initially lacked enough detail.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training. People were supported with food, drinks, health care and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors did observe kind and patient support with eating, and people spoke positively about staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors found that people's diverse needs, preferences and health needs were recorded and supported.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and oversight had become more consistent. Audits identified actions, concerns were responded to, and the manager acted promptly on feedback.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 May 2023. An inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, visitors, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care, reviewed care plans and staff recruitment records, and checked medicines, infection control and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were handled safely and infection controls were effective. Staff supported people's health, nutrition and hydration, and people were involved in choices such as menus.
The home had a new manager who had been in post for three months but was not yet registered. Inspectors found management and care had improved. They identified that some emergency evacuation plans and as-needed medicines guidance lacked detail, but the manager corrected these issues during the inspection and provided evidence.
Managing risks
Risk assessments were detailed and gave staff personalised guidance. The manager reviewed incidents and falls to look for patterns and decide whether more action was needed.
“Risk assessments were detailed and clearly guided staff on how to support people.” from the report
Health support
People were referred to healthcare professionals when needed. Inspectors found timely support for health and wellbeing, including regular clinical reviews.
“I think the staff are generally responsive to the health and well being of the residents and make referrals in a timely manner.” from the report
Food and drink
People's food preferences were recorded and they helped shape menus. Staff monitored fluid intake and supported people patiently with eating.
“We saw nutrition care plans which had been developed with people's input detailing their favourite meals.” from the report
Improving leadership
Inspectors found more consistent management and evidence that earlier problems were being addressed. The new manager had a clear improvement plan and responded promptly to feedback.
“There was now consistent management and oversight in place.” from the report
Agency staffing
needs fixingThe home was using a high amount of agency staff because recruitment was difficult. Inspectors said the agency staff were regular and knew the people living there, but families should ask how continuity is maintained.
“There was high use of agency staff, however they were regular staff who had got to know the people living in the home.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
needs fixingSome personal emergency evacuation plans did not contain enough detail at first. The manager corrected them during the inspection and sent inspectors evidence of the updated plans.
“However, we found these not to contain enough personalised detail.” from the report
As-needed medicines guidance
needs fixingProtocols for medicines used when needed did not initially explain clearly when a particular person might need them. The manager updated the protocols during the inspection.
“However, they lacked detail to guide staff on when an individual may require the medicine.” from the report
- 01How much agency staff do you currently use, and how do you make sure they know my relative's needs and preferences?
- 02Can you show me how my relative's personal emergency evacuation plan is kept personalised and reviewed?
- 03How do you record when my relative may need an as-needed medicine, such as pain relief or medicine for agitation?
- 04What progress has been made with the new manager's application to register?
- 05How are people and relatives told what has changed in response to feedback?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted partly by concerns about care delivery and medicines; Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated, while Caring and Responsive were not separately rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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.
Every inspection of Hazelford Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 March 2022.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.