CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Iris Hayter House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found safe medicines procedures, suitable staffing, reviewed risk assessments and effective infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection, although inspectors described the staff culture as positive and caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, committed staff and quality checks covering medicines, safeguarding and incidents.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Iris Hayter House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed support after earlier problems with medicines and checks.
This was a focused inspection on 15 April 2021. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff and managers. They reviewed medicine records, risk assessments, staff rotas, recruitment information, training and quality checks.
The inspection found that medicines were now managed safely. Records were accurate, staff were trained and their competence was checked. There were enough staff, risks were reviewed, and people said they felt safe.
The home had improved its quality monitoring since the previous inspection. Managers used audits, incident reviews and staff meetings to identify improvements. Infection control measures, including protective equipment, social distancing and testing arrangements, were also assessed positively.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. This inspection only assessed those two areas, so the other three CQC questions were not rated in this report.
Enough skilled staff
The home had enough staff with the right skills to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“The provider had enough staff on duty with the right skill mix to keep people safe.” from the report
Improved quality checks
The provider had introduced regular audits and used incidents and staff meetings to support improvement.
“Regular audits were conducted which helped to improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Positive risk-taking
Staff supported people to remain independent and take part in activities outside the home when restrictions allowed.
“The service also promoted positive risk taking.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about protective equipment, social distancing, testing, cleaning and plans to prevent or manage outbreaks.
“Staff had been well trained and followed robust PPE (personal protective equipment) protocols.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check that medicines records remain accurate and that bottled medicines are recorded safely?
- 02What regular audits are currently carried out, and how are families told about improvements?
- 03How often are people's risk assessments reviewed, particularly where positive risk-taking is being supported?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough suitably skilled staff when staff are absent?
- 05What infection control and outbreak arrangements are currently in place?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the report does not rate Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 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, October 2019
Iris Hayter House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring, personalised support but medicines records and quality checks were not always safe or effective.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with seven people, staff and managers, checked care and medicines records, and reviewed records about staffing, incidents, complaints and quality checks.
People generally received kind and personalised care. Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, good support with health and nutrition, respect for people's choices, and activities that matched people's interests.
The main problem was medicines management. Some bottled medicines had no opening dates and medicine stock records were inaccurate, although inspectors established that people had received their medicines as prescribed. The quality checks had not found these problems. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement. The other three areas were rated Good.
Kind and knowledgeable staff
People told inspectors that staff were caring and knew their preferences. Staff provided compassionate and personalised support.
“Staff's commitment and compassion enabled people to receive care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff on duty with the right skills to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“The provider had enough staff on duty with the right skill mix to keep people safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and goals. People were supported to remain independent and take part in activities.
“People had individual care plans in place which reflected their current needs including the actions staff should take to support people meet their intended outcomes and goals.” from the report
Respect for choices
Staff involved people in decisions, sought permission and respected their wishes. People were supported in the least restrictive way possible.
“We observed staff routinely seeking people's permission to support them and respecting their wishes.” from the report
Medicine records were not always safe
seriousFive bottled medicines had no opening dates, so staff could not be sure they were still safe to use. Stock balances for three people's medicines were inaccurate, although people had received their medicines as prescribed.
“We checked five bottled medicines and found there was no opening dates recorded on the bottles.” from the report
Quality checks missed the problem
needs fixingThe home's medicine audits did not identify the recording concerns found during the inspection. This meant the monitoring system was not fully effective.
“Audits of medicines did not identify our concerns.” from the report
- 01How are bottled medicines now dated when they are opened, and who checks this?
- 02How are medicine stock balances checked for accuracy, and how are errors followed up?
- 03What changes were made to the medicine protocols and audits after this inspection?
- 04How can relatives see evidence that the actions reported as completed have been maintained?
- 05How are people involved in reviewing their personalised care plans and activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; Safe and Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement, while the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 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 Iris Hayter House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.