CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Henderson and Harvard
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about testing, social distancing, visitor safety, cleaning, admissions and managing infection outbreaks. They recommended improvements to PPE donning and doffing stations, which the manager acted on promptly.
- 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 2021
Henderson and Harvard was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, with a recommendation about PPE stations.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found good arrangements for testing, social distancing, visitor safety, cleaning and managing possible outbreaks. The home had a contingency plan for emergencies and a clean, hygienic environment.
Inspectors recommended improvements to the stations used for putting on and removing PPE. The manager acted promptly. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a full quality rating.
Infection testing and prevention
The home had a robust COVID-19 testing process, clear management oversight and arrangements for social distancing and visitor safety.
“A robust COVID-19 testing process was in place, and management had clear oversight of this.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the premises clean and hygienic, with scheduled cleaning and frequent cleaning of touch points. People also had access to a large garden.
“The premises were clean and hygienic. There was a cleaning schedule in place with frequent touch point cleaning undertaken.” from the report
Planning and information
The home had a pandemic contingency plan and provided staff with practical information, including wellbeing suggestions and vaccination guidance.
“A contingency plan was in place which detailed steps to take in case of emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic, including useful contact details.” from the report
PPE stations
minorInspectors recommended improvements to the stations used for putting on and removing PPE. The manager took prompt action, but this was still a shortfall identified during the inspection.
“During the inspection we made a recommendation about improvements to PPE 'donning and doffing' stations.” from the report
- 01What improvements were made to the PPE donning and doffing stations, and how are they checked now?
- 02How are COVID-19 tests arranged, and what happens if a pre-booked courier does not collect them?
- 03How do you manage visitors, social distancing and possible infection outbreaks?
- 04How often are touch points and other areas cleaned, and who checks the cleaning schedule?
- 05How would the contingency plan work if an emergency occurred during an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2021 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, July 2018
Henderson and Harvard was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 14 May 2018. One inspector spoke with staff and relatives, observed care, reviewed three people's care files, and checked audits, policies and staff records.
The home supported eight adults with severe or profound learning disabilities, including people with mobility or physical difficulties. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, good support with food and healthcare, and care that respected people's choices and independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had recently changed provider on 1 May 2018, and the report also noted that the manager had made changes to reduce duplicated paperwork and give staff more time with people.
Enough staff
Staffing was based on people's individual needs. Extra staff were used when people went into the community.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's assessed needs and when people accessed the community, additional staff were deployed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people in a compassionate way and respecting their dignity when giving medicines.
“Our observations showed staff to be kind, caring and support people in a compassionate manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences, strengths and interests. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“These were fully person centred and gave detailed guidance for staff so that staff could consistently deliver the care and support the person needed, and in the way the person preferred.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager used regular audits and followed up actions. Staff also used handovers and a communication book to share important information.
“There were a number of effective monitoring systems in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How has the change of provider on 1 May 2018 affected the people living here and the staff team?
- 02How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs or choices change?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough staff when people go out into the community?
- 04How are relatives involved in care planning, reviews and decisions about healthcare or end of life care?
- 05What happens when a family raises a complaint, and how will we be kept informed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and giving ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 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 Henderson and Harvard
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 April 2018.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.