CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hazelwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about cleanliness, protective equipment, testing, social distancing and infection-control arrangements. However, the visiting procedure had not been fully followed during one family visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Hazelwood House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found generally sound infection controls, but a visiting procedure had not always been followed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home was clean. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly, people and staff were regularly tested, and there was enough protective equipment. The home had procedures for screening visitors, testing them and providing protective equipment.
One family visit had not followed the visiting procedure fully. The registered manager said this would be followed correctly in future. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean home
The home was clean and staff kept records of cleaning, including extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The home was kept clean. Staff kept records of their cleaning schedules, which included additional cleaning high touch surfaces” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment, and staff were trained to use it safely and correctly.
“The service had a good supply of PPE to meet current and future demand.” from the report
Testing arrangements
Staff and people using the service were regularly tested. The report also says mental capacity requirements were followed where needed for testing.
“People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19.” from the report
Visiting procedure not fully followed
needs fixingInspectors found that the agreed screening, testing and protective equipment process had not been fully followed during a recent family visit. The registered manager said it would be followed correctly in future.
“However, we identified this procedure had not been fully followed during a family visit shortly before the inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every visitor is screened and completes the required rapid lateral flow test before entering?
- 02What happened after the family visit where the visiting procedure was not fully followed?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and could these affect people's care?
- 04How are people supported with COVID-19 testing when they cannot give informed consent?
- 05When was the home last given a full inspection and ratings for the other areas of care?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a small recording issue addressed during the visit.
Inspectors visited without notice on 23 and 24 July 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff records and management systems.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, supported, listened to and encouraged to make choices and develop independence.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached four regulations. At this inspection, the earlier problems had been addressed and the provider was no longer in breach.
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and staff understood people's individual needs, preferences and communication styles. People were involved in planning and reviewing their support.
“Care plans were detailed and person centred.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, kindness, dignity and respect.
“Staff were kind, patient and responsive to people's needs.” from the report
Safety and medicines
Staffing had increased to meet people's needs, including support for community activities. Medicines were stored, administered and checked through suitable systems.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, take part in daily tasks and develop new skills. They were encouraged to have control over their lives.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in activities at home and in the community, including gardening, singing, exercise and social events. Staffing changes helped people access activities more consistently.
“People were provided with opportunities to participate in a range of activities both in the service and in the community.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had acted on the previous inspection findings. Inspectors found improvements in staffing, consent, personalised care and quality monitoring.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingBest-interest decisions had not always been recorded clearly. The manager took immediate action after inspectors raised this, but families should check that records remain complete.
“However, best interest decisions had not always been clearly recorded.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the design and location reduced the possible negative effect on people.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How do you now record best-interest decisions, and can relatives see the relevant records?
- 02What staffing levels are in place for people who need extra support to go out into the community?
- 03How are people's care plans reviewed, and how are their choices and preferences recorded?
- 04Which regular activities and community opportunities are currently available to residents?
- 05What changes have been made since the July 2019 inspection, and how do you check that they are still working?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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 Hazelwood House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 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.