CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hazelmead Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Hazelmead Residential Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, caring support but gaps in consent records and quality checks.
Inspectors visited on 20 December 2023 and 16 January 2024. They spoke with people, a relative and staff, observed the home, and reviewed care, medicines and management records.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff knew people well, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough trained staff. People were supported with healthcare, food, activities and community links.
The home did not always record mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions correctly. Its quality checks had also failed to identify these problems and did not clearly show that lessons from incidents were shared.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe remained Good, while Effective and Well-led changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Safe care
Safeguarding, risk management, staffing and medicines arrangements were generally safe. Medicines records were accurate and staff had regular competency checks.
“Medicines were managed and stored safely. Medicines records were accurate.” from the report
Staff know people well
Staff provided person-centred support and understood people's individual needs. People and relatives were involved in care planning.
“Staff knew people well and provided person-centred care.” from the report
Health support
People were helped to access healthcare and specialist services. Staff followed advice from healthcare professionals.
“People had been referred to services such as the speech and language therapist in a timely manner.” from the report
Positive culture
People said they enjoyed living at the home and felt listened to. Staff supported people to take part in activities and build confidence.
“There was a positive, person-centred culture in the service.” from the report
Consent records
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always in place. Some restrictions were used without the required legal authority being recorded.
“Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always in place.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's monitoring systems did not identify the consent problems found during the inspection. Inspectors said this created a risk that the service could deteriorate further.
“The provider's quality monitoring processes in place were not robust.” from the report
Lessons from incidents
needs fixingThere was no formal process for recording and sharing lessons learnt after incidents or accidents. Inspectors recommended that this process be reviewed.
“There was no formal process for documenting lessons learnt or sharing lessons learnt.” from the report
Management capacity
needs fixingThe registered manager spent most of their time caring rather than managing the service. This left limited time for quality assurance.
“This meant there was limited time for the registered manager to dedicate to the quality assurance of the service.” from the report
- 01Have mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now been completed for everyone who needs them?
- 02What legal authority is in place for any restrictions on a person's care or movement?
- 03How will managers check that consent and best-interest records remain up to date?
- 04How are accidents and incidents reviewed, and how are lessons recorded and shared with all staff?
- 05Who now has responsibility and enough time for quality checks and managing improvements?
This inspection looked at the overall quality of the care home, including care, premises, infection control, medicines and management; it gave ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led, while no separate ratings were given for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2024 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, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, personalised care, with some minor medicine errors addressed through extra checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 July 2019. One inspector spoke with three residents, observed support during a meal with all five residents, spoke with staff and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records. Relatives and the registered manager were also contacted.
The home supported five people with physical and learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe and happy, received individual support and were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people's needs and communication, and people were involved in decisions about their care, meals, activities and daily life.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The rating means inspectors found consistently good care at this inspection. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 10 January 2017.
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences and adapted support to their individual needs, skills and goals.
“People received a personalised service from friendly, supportive staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in running their home and supported to develop independent living skills and make their own decisions.
“People were fully involved in planning menus, shopping and preparing their own meals.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found warm relationships between people and staff. Relatives said people were treated with respect, kindness and dignity.
“Relatives said their family members were "always treated with respect, kindness and dignity".” from the report
Community life
People were supported to take part in activities they chose and to remain connected with their local community.
“Staff made sure people were valued as members of their local community.” from the report
Open management
The management team was described as approachable and supportive, with regular checks on the quality and safety of the home.
“The management team were open, approachable and supportive.” from the report
Minor medicine errors
minorThe report says there had been some minor medicine errors. Staff involved were temporarily withdrawn from giving medicines and received extra support and competency checks.
“Individual supervisions and reflective practice sessions were held after some minor medicine errors.” from the report
- 01What were the minor medicine errors mentioned in the report, and what checks are now in place to prevent them happening again?
- 02How would you involve my relative in planning their care, goals, meals and activities?
- 03How do staff recognise and respond to my relative's particular communication methods?
- 04What activities and community opportunities could my relative take part in?
- 05How would you support my relative at the end of their life, and when would another service be needed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five CQC key questions and looked at both the accommodation and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 August 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 Hazelmead Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Hazelmead Residential Care Home →
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Hazelmead Residential Care Home →
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- 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.
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 Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.