CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hazell Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and inspectors found systems to manage abuse, dehydration, falls, choking, pressure ulcers and malnutrition. Medicines, equipment, fire safety and infection control were also checked and found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management, audits and systems for learning from concerns and incidents. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about how the home was run.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, although staffing could be stretched when people's needs changed.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 12 July 2023. It followed a concern about safe care, including risks linked to dehydration. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, received their medicines as needed, could have visitors, and were supported by staff who responded to requests. The home was clean, and checks were in place for equipment, fire safety and infection control.
Inspectors found systems to monitor accidents, medicines, complaints and the quality of care. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management and the person-centred approach.
This was not a full review of all five areas. Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so their previous ratings were used. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection published in November 2018.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“I know [family member is] safe because I vary the times I come and visit so I think I see everything and it's okay.” from the report
Medicines were monitored
People received medicines as required. Audits and stock checks helped identify and correct discrepancies.
“People received their medicines as required. There were systems in place to obtain medicines when people had been admitted to the service following hospital discharge.” from the report
Good management
The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to identify shortfalls and improve care. Relatives and staff were positive about the management.
“A programme of audits undertaken by the registered manager and provider supported them to identify shortfalls and address them.” from the report
Visitors were welcomed
People could have visitors when they wanted them. Inspectors observed people enjoying visits during the inspection.
“People's relatives told us they could visit when they wanted to.” from the report
Staffing could be stretched
minorMost staff said staffing was sufficient, but one staff member said the team could struggle when people's needs changed and two staff were needed.
“when there was a change in the people using the service, they could struggle when people required the support of 2 staff.” from the report
- 01How do you adjust staffing when a resident's needs change and they require support from two staff?
- 02How do you monitor and respond to dehydration risks for my relative?
- 03Which unit would my relative be cared for in, and would their care be long-term or rehabilitation?
- 04How will you keep me informed if there are concerns about my relative's wellbeing?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected this time?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried over from the previous inspection published on 30 November 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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, November 2018
Rated Good, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found kind, personalised support, but some medicines and safeguarding records needed attention.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 16 and 17 October 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with 20 people, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and that staff knew their preferences well.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when Safe was rated Requires Improvement because medicines records were not fully in place. At this inspection, medicines were generally given safely, but there were still some gaps in records and two missing PRN care plans. Inspectors also found some issues with safeguarding reporting and records about nutrition.
Exceptionally caring staff
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, patient and compassionate. Inspectors observed warm relationships, laughter and respectful communication.
“Without exception people spoken with said that the staff were very caring and treated them well.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, life histories and individual needs. Staff knew people well and supported their choices and independence.
“People's care records demonstrated that they continued to receive care which was tailor made to their individual needs.” from the report
Improved medicines safety
The home had improved from the previous inspection. Medicines were generally administered safely, checked and stored appropriately.
“At this inspection of 16 and 17 October 2018, improvements had been made and this key question was rated good.” from the report
Activities and social contact
Activities were available seven days a week, including group and individual activities. Inspectors saw singing, dancing and a church service, and people described regular activities.
“There were two activities coordinators who ensured activities were covered seven days a week.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and identify improvements. Incidents and accidents were reviewed for learning.
“There continued to be a programme of audits which were used to monitor the service provided.” from the report
Gaps in medicines records
needs fixingSome records for medicines applied externally, including creams, had not been completed consistently. The home had identified this and was working to improve it.
“However, there were some gaps in the MAR for medicines to be administered externally, including creams.” from the report
Missing PRN care plans
seriousTwo medicines to be taken when needed did not have care plans explaining when they should be given. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“However, there were no PRN care plans in place for two medicines, the deputy manager told us this would be addressed immediately.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
seriousOne concern investigated by the provider had not been reported to the local authority safeguarding team. A safeguarding team member was investigating a separate concern during the inspection.
“However, a concern had been sent directly to the provider, which they had investigated and took action, but this had not been reported to the local authority safeguarding team.” from the report
Action after weight loss
needs fixingOne person had lost weight and no action had been taken before inspectors identified it. The home then contacted health professionals for advice.
“However, one person had lost weight and no actions had been taken, this was identified on the first day of our inspection.” from the report
Inconsistent nutrition records
minorFood and fluid charts for people at risk of weight loss or dehydration were not always completed consistently. Daily records did contain some information about dietary intake.
“Although we noted these were not always completed consistently, daily records also evidenced if there had been any issues with people's dietary intake.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to make sure creams and other externally applied medicines are always recorded?
- 02Do all medicines taken when needed now have clear PRN care plans, and how are staff checked on this?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns reported to the local authority and monitored to make sure this happens every time?
- 04What is the current process when someone loses weight, and how quickly are health professionals involved?
- 05How do you make sure food and fluid charts are completed consistently for people at risk of weight loss or dehydration?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with ratings compared with the previous inspection on 20 October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 November 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 Hazell Court
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 February 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.