CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hutton Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, effective medicines management and improved fire safety. Risks were assessed and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not looked at during this inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not looked at during this inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not looked at during this inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks, clear management responsibilities and a positive, person-centred culture. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 July, 2 August and 23 August 2021. One inspector spoke with three people, five staff members and three relatives. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable infection control and improved fire safety. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
The previous inspection was rated Requires Improvement and found a breach of Regulation 12 about safe care and treatment. At this inspection, the home had made the required improvements and was no longer in breach.
This was not a full review of all five areas. Inspectors only assessed Safe and Well-led. Ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Fire safety improved
Fire drills, evacuation equipment and staff training were in place. Staff were confident about what to do in a fire.
“Fire drills happened regularly and were recorded appropriately, there was plenty of evacuation equipment which staff had been trained to use, and staff were clear and confident in what action they should take in the event of a fire.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
People received their medicines as prescribed. Records were complete, and staff had guidance for medicines given when needed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicine records were clear and completed fully.” from the report
Person-centred support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and health needs. People were encouraged to make choices, take part in activities and be as independent as possible.
“People were encouraged to take part in activities they liked and to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Effective management checks
The home used quality checks to identify improvements. Managers and staff understood their responsibilities and investigated incidents.
“Quality assurance systems were effective in identifying and generating improvements within the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What has changed in fire safety since the previous inspection, and how often are evacuation drills carried out?
- 02How will you support my relative's specific health needs, anxiety or distress?
- 03How will my relative be supported to make choices and remain independent?
- 04How do you check that medicines, including medicines given when needed, are recorded and given safely?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 September 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, December 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but serious fire safety problems and weak quality checks.
Inspectors visited on 1 and 4 November 2019. They spoke with a person using the service, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, training information and other records. They also contacted the local Fire Service.
The home provided care and support for up to nine people with a learning disability. Seven people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, involved in decisions and supported to live active, individual lives.
The main problem was fire safety. Evacuation arrangements were unsafe, equipment was not readily accessible and fire drill records were missing. The home took immediate action after the inspection, including changing evacuation plans, training staff and carrying out fire drills.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 4 May 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found staff were caring, considerate and respectful. Relatives spoke positively about the staff team.
“Staff were caring and considerate and listened to what people had to say.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's histories, preferences and support needs. People and relatives were involved in reviews and decisions.
“People received personalised care. Care plans were person-centred and detailed.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to make choices, take part in activities and achieve personal goals, with positive risk-taking supported.
“People were promoted to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Inspectors found medicines were organised and given when needed. Staff had relevant training and their practice was checked.
“Medicine systems were well organised and people received their medicines when they needed them” from the report
Unsafe fire evacuation arrangements
seriousThe home had unsafe fire arrangements. Evacuation equipment was not readily accessible, staff could not confidently demonstrate its use and there were no available fire drill records since October 2018.
“Fire safety arrangements at the service were not safe.” from the report
Quality checks missed serious risks
needs fixingThe home's audits did not identify the fire safety failings found by inspectors. This meant management checks were not reliably protecting people from risk.
“Audits undertaken had not recognised the failings in fire safety we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to each person's personal emergency evacuation plan, and when were they last reviewed?
- 02Where is the evacuation equipment kept, and can staff demonstrate that they know how to use it?
- 03How often are fire drills carried out now, and can we see the records?
- 04What has changed in the quality audits so that fire safety problems will be identified promptly?
- 05How will you show us that all staff have received and understood the updated fire evacuation instructions?
This was a planned inspection that looked at the premises and care provided and assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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 Hutton Avenue
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
43 live-in carers within about an hour of Hartlepool
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 £970 to £1,120 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.