CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Hamlet
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing, visiting and admissions. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not rated or covered in the detailed findings.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not rated or covered in the detailed findings.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not rated or covered in the detailed findings.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated or covered in the detailed findings.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 8 February 2022. The visit was announced with 24 hours' notice.
This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether staffing pressures were affecting the service.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, testing, admissions, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and infection outbreaks appropriately. The home had updated its infection control policies and staff had received relevant training.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Infection control policies
The home had updated its infection prevention and control policies and trained staff in infection control and PPE for COVID-19.
“The service had updated their policies and procedures to ensure infection prevention and control (IPC) processes were robust.” from the report
Testing and protective measures
Visitors needed proof of a negative lateral flow test and had to wear PPE. New admissions also had to provide confirmation of a negative COVID-19 test.
“On arrival to the service, proof of a negative lateral flow device (LFD) test was required and personal protective equipment (PPE) needed to be worn.” from the report
Cleaning and vaccination
Cleaning of frequently touched surfaces had increased, and the report says all staff had received their COVID-19 vaccination.
“Cleaning regimes had been changed to ensure robust processes were in place. High touch surfaces were being cleaned more regularly.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had arrangements for visits that followed the government guidance in force at the time.
“The provider implemented visiting arrangements in line with government guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently manage visitors and protect people from infections?
- 02What arrangements are now used for testing and safely admitting new residents?
- 03What staffing pressures are affecting the home now, and how do they affect people's care?
- 04How often are high-touch surfaces cleaned, and how are infection outbreaks managed?
- 05What infection prevention and control training do staff currently receive?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few minor issues needing attention.
The inspection took place on 29 and 31 May 2018. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced in advance. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager, observed care, and checked care plans, medicine records and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, medicines were generally managed safely, staff had suitable training, and people received kind and personalised support.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in February 2017, when it was rated Requires improvement because of problems with records and staff training. Inspectors said the required action had been taken and the regulations were now being met.
Improved records and training
The home had acted on the problems found at the previous inspection. Inspectors found the required action had been completed and staff training had increased.
“At this inspection we found the service had taken all the required action and were now meeting the regulations.” from the report
Safe medicines process
Medicine records contained the necessary information, including for creams, supplements and medicines given when needed. Records, storage and audits were checked regularly.
“Medication was safely managed, records were up to date and provided the necessary details in relation to all prescribed medicines including topical creams and dietary supplements and thickeners.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw staff being patient, kind and caring. People were supported with dignity and in ways that suited their communication needs.
“Staff were observed to be kind, patient and caring during the inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, goals and what could upset them. They were reviewed regularly, with involvement from people, families and other professionals.
“Care plans were person centred and written in the first person.” from the report
Clear oversight
The management structure was clear and the home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care. Staff said the manager was supportive and would act on concerns.
“Governance systems ensured care and support was provided properly and gaps or errors had been identified by audits and addressed.” from the report
One medicine recording error
needs fixingOn one occasion, the recorded reason for giving a medicine when needed did not match the agreed protocol. The manager investigated and found this was a recording error, not incorrect use of the medicine.
“We found one occasion when the recorded reason an 'as required' medication had been given differed to the protocol.” from the report
Non-urgent electrical work
minorThe electrical inspection found three areas requiring non-urgent action. A plan was in place to complete this work.
“There were three areas identified for non-urgent action.” from the report
Dignity champions not yet fully established
minorThe home aimed to establish dignity champions, but this had not been fully achieved at the time of inspection.
“This had not been fully realised at the time of inspection but showed the service was committed to improving people's dignity.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that reasons recorded for medicines given when needed match the person's protocol?
- 02What changes were made to improve cleaning of entrance doors and other areas?
- 03Were the three areas identified in the electrical inspection completed, and when?
- 04Have dignity champions now been established, and how do they improve people's care?
- 05How are care plans and activities adapted for people staying for respite compared with those receiving long-term care?
This was a full inspection covering all five questions, based on observations, discussions with people, relatives and staff, and checks of care plans, medicine records and governance documents. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 July 2018 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 The Hamlet
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 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.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Salford
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. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.