CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hendford Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The inspection looked at infection prevention and control. Inspectors were assured about testing, protective equipment, social distancing, hygiene, admissions and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Hendford Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
The CQC carried out an announced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found private testing areas for visitors and professionals, safe visiting arrangements, suitable protective equipment training and plans for isolating people if they tested positive. They were assured that infection risks were being managed.
This was not a full inspection of the home. The service was inspected but not rated, so the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Visitor testing
The home had clear, private areas where visitors and professionals could be tested.
“vacant rooms had been converted to testing rooms so that this could be conducted privately for visitors.” from the report
Staff PPE training
Staff had infection control experience, supported by external protective equipment training that included practical checks.
“The provider organised personal protective equipment (PPE) training externally which included practical donning and doffing assessments.” from the report
Safer visiting
The home provided face-to-face visits using different methods, including a barrier and separate external access.
“The service also provided face to face visiting opportunities safely through several methods.” from the report
Plans for outbreaks
The home had procedures ready for zoning and isolation if someone tested positive for coronavirus.
“There were procedures ready so that if a person received a positive covid-19 test, staff could put zoning and isolation practices in action straight away.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visitors tested and supported to visit safely?
- 03What training do staff currently receive on using protective equipment?
- 04What happens if a resident or staff member tests positive for coronavirus?
- 05When was the home's last full inspection, and what were the ratings for care, staffing, medicines and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with improvements needed in mental capacity records, medicines storage and parts of the home.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 May 2019. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience visited, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, training, complaints and quality checks. They also contacted two healthcare professionals afterwards.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with dignity, staff understood their needs, risks were managed and people had access to healthcare and activities.
There were some areas to improve. Mental capacity assessments were not always specific to the decision being made, and best-interest decisions for some restrictive practices were not recorded. Some thickeners were not stored securely, creams were not always dated, and parts of the building showed wear and tear.
The home was also asked to improve some records and practice around people's weights, end-of-life planning, distress care plans and communication during transfers. The report says legal requirements were met and does not record any breached regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People were generally treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Relatives also spoke positively about the care.
“People were supported by staff that were caring and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Risk and safeguarding systems
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risk assessments and guidance covered known risks such as swallowing and pressure ulcers.
“Risks of abuse to people were minimised.” from the report
Skilled staff
Inspectors found staff had the training, knowledge and supervision needed for their roles. Staff also worked with healthcare professionals when people needed extra support.
“People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.” from the report
Activities and personal care
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, supported family contact and recorded people's life histories, interests and communication needs.
“There were also a range of activities arranged throughout the month and year.” from the report
Open management
Relatives and staff expressed confidence in the registered manager. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care.
“The service had a range of quality monitoring arrangements in place.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome capacity assessments were not specific to the decision involved. Best-interest decisions for restrictive practices such as bedrails and pressure mats were not recorded, so the home was given a recommendation to improve this.
“Capacity assessments had been completed for people, however we found these were not all decision specific.” from the report
Medicines storage and records
seriousPrescribed thickeners were not always securely stored, creating a choking risk if taken internally. Creams and ointments were not always dated when opened.
“We observed prescribed thickeners were not always stored securely.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure mental capacity assessments are specific to each decision?
- 02How are best-interest decisions recorded when bedrails, pressure mats or other restrictive practices are used?
- 03How do you check that thickeners, creams and ointments are stored safely and dated correctly?
- 04What refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, particularly for dementia-friendly bedroom identification?
- 05How do you make sure every resident has consistent end-of-life planning and a clear plan when they are frequently distressed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five rating areas, including the premises and care provided; the previous Good ratings from November 2016 were reviewed as part of the inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 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 Hendford Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.