Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Hothfield Neurological Rehabilitation Centre

Goodpublished 6 September 2022, 4 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
People received medicines as prescribed, but instructions and records for some when-needed medicines were not always complete. Storage temperature checks, signatures on handwritten changes and individual fire risk assessments for paraffin-based products also needed improvement.
Effective?
Good
Assessments and rehabilitation goals were detailed, staff were trained, and a range of health professionals worked together. People were supported with nutrition, hydration, healthcare appointments and decision-making.
Caring?
Good
Staff treated people with kindness, patience, dignity and respect. They supported people to communicate their wishes and encouraged independence with everyday tasks.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed. However, some people in The Manor had little to occupy them when the activity coordinator was taking another person out.
Well-led?
Good
The home had a person-centred culture, regular feedback from people and relatives, and systems for reviewing quality and incidents. Some staff in The Manor wanted more management presence.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, September 2022

Rated Good; inspectors found kind, effective and personalised care, but medicines management still required improvement.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 and 19 August 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, health professionals and advocates. They reviewed care plans, recruitment records, medicines records, audits and other documents.

The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led care were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, as medicines records, storage checks and instructions for some medicines were not always complete.

People were generally protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff to keep people safe, infection control arrangements were in place, and risks were assessed. The service had already taken some steps to improve medicines monitoring after the inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors saw staff being patient and gentle. People and relatives described staff as caring, and privacy and dignity were respected during personal care.

    “During interactions we observed staff always approached people with gentleness, patience and kindness.” from the report
  • Rehabilitation support

    People had access to nurses, therapists and other professionals. Inspectors found that rehabilitation goals were well considered and people made progress towards greater independence.

    “Their assessments and identification of rehab goals are very informative and well considered.” from the report
  • Personalised care

    Care plans included people's routines, communication needs, health, diet, sleep, mobility and emotional needs. Relatives were involved and kept informed about changes.

    “Care plans were personalised and detailed daily routines specific to each person.” from the report
  • Learning and oversight

    The home reviewed accidents and incidents, recorded actions and used audits and clinical governance meetings to monitor care. People, relatives and staff were involved in discussing improvements.

    “Where accidents and incidents happened there were actions in place to reduce risks of them reoccurring.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines records and instructions

    serious

    Instructions for some when-needed medicines were missing or out of date. Staff did not always record why these medicines were given or whether they worked, and handwritten changes often lacked the required signatures.

    “When a PRN medicine was administered staff did not record why the medicine had been given or if it had had the desired outcome.” from the report
  • Medicines storage checks

    serious

    Temperature checks for medicines kept in people's rooms were inconsistent. Some readings were above the recommended maximum and there was no evidence of action being taken at the time.

    “Temperature monitoring of medicines stored in people's rooms was inconsistent and sometimes recorded above the maximum recommended temperature.” from the report
  • Activities and social time

    needs fixing

    In The Manor, people could have very little to do when the activity coordinator was taking another person out. Staff also said they did not always have enough time to sit and talk with people.

    “However, as the activity coordinator took one person out this left people who remained at The Manor with very little to keep them occupied.” from the report
  • Management presence in The Manor

    needs fixing

    Some staff in The Manor felt managers were not present often enough. The home said this was linked to recruitment and would improve when the Head of Nursing started.

    “However, staff at The Manor felt there was at times a lack of manager's presence.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has changed in practice since the inspection to ensure every when-needed medicine has a clear, up-to-date protocol?
  2. 02How do you now check medicine temperatures in people's rooms, and what action is taken when a reading is too high?
  3. 03How do you make sure handwritten changes to medicines records are authorised and witnessed?
  4. 04What individual fire risk assessments are now in place for people using paraffin-based skin products?
  5. 05How will you provide more activities and social time for people living in The Manor?

This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five key questions, with particular attention to medicines concerns; it also included infection prevention and control checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Hothfield Neurological Rehabilitation Centre

5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.

  1. September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Hothfield Neurological Rehabilitation Centre →

  2. February 2020Goodstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  3. September 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  4. August 2016Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
  5. February 2016Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
  6. March 2021

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 March 2021.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent

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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.

“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
Anthea D., about Theresa L.
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
Winnie N., about Irene N.
See live-in carers near KentProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.