CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lord Hardy Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were being followed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 April 2021. It looked at how the home was prepared for and managing infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, the building layout and the infection control policy. Staff were supervised and trained in infection control.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Staff training and supervision
Staff were supervised and trained so they could follow infection control guidance.
“Staff were supervised and monitored to ensure they followed infection control guidelines, and staff had received appropriate training in this area.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Entry procedures were managed, visitors were tested for COVID-19 and suitable areas were provided for visits.
“Procedures for entering the home were well managed and visitors were tested for COVID-19 before meeting with people living at the home.” from the report
Cleaning and testing
The cleaning schedule had been increased, and staff and residents were tested regularly under the government programme.
“The cleaning schedule for the home had been enhanced to maintain people's safety.” from the report
Keeping families in touch
The home took steps to help people stay connected with friends and family, including through activities.
“Action was taken to keep friends and families in touch; this was also incorporated into activities at the home, where people were supported to make cards and take photographs for their loved ones.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visitors currently tested and supported to visit residents?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested now?
- 04How do you check that staff are following infection control guidance and using protective equipment safely?
- 05What are the current arrangements for helping residents keep in touch with friends and family?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 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, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor medicine recording issues and some facilities needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 July 2019. The inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, a healthcare professional, managers and staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicine records, safeguarding information, audits and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and received good care. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, personalised care, good support with food and healthcare, and kind relationships between staff and people.
There were some minor shortfalls. Medicine records had occasional missing signatures, some staff wore false nails or jewellery against policy, and one person's food-stained clothing was not changed promptly. Carpets were worn or dated, and balconies had been closed for some time without a known date for reopening.
The previous overall rating was Good, published on 1 February 2017. Responsive care had previously been rated Requires Improvement but improved to Good at this inspection. No regulations were recorded as breached.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, accidents were monitored and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns.
“People told us they received a good service and felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm relationships and staff supporting people with dignity, privacy, choice and independence.
“Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they supported.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's health, social needs, routines and preferences. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.
“Care plans were developed and written with each person and reflected their individuality.” from the report
Trained staff and joined-up care
Staff received induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisal. The home worked with health and social care professionals to support people's needs.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled; and carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Good leadership
The management team was visible and approachable. Audits and other checks were used to monitor care, safety and the building.
“The registered manager had created an inclusive culture that put people at the heart of the service.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingInspectors found minor recording errors, such as missing signatures on medicine records. They said these did not pose a significant risk, but asked for more frequent and robust audits.
“We identified minor recording issues, such as omitted signatures on medication administration records (MAR).” from the report
Infection control policy not followed by some staff
needs fixingSome staff wore false nails and jewellery, contrary to the home's infection control policy. The manager said this would be addressed through supervision.
“Some staff had false nails and jewellery which was contrary to the provider's policy.” from the report
Closed balconies and dated areas
minorAll balconies had been closed for safety reasons for some time, and there was no clear date for reopening them. Some carpets were worn or dated.
“All the balconies had been out of use for some time for safety reasons.” from the report
Personal presentation
needs fixingOne person had spilled food on their clothes and was not supported to change before taking part in an activity. The manager said this would be addressed with staff.
“The person's clothing was not changed before moving on to take part in a reading activity.” from the report
Activities
minorThe home did not have a dedicated activity coordinator. Staff and volunteers provided group and one-to-one activities, with some external entertainers.
“The service did not have a dedicated activity coordinator.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicine audits since inspectors found omitted signatures on medicine administration records?
- 02Have all staff stopped wearing false nails and jewellery in line with your infection control policy?
- 03What is the current position on reopening the balconies, and what safety work is still needed?
- 04How do you make sure people are helped to change stained or soiled clothing promptly?
- 05How do you plan and provide activities without a dedicated activity coordinator?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 August 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 Lord Hardy Court
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.