CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Hawthorns Care Centre
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always managed safely. Inspectors also found missed or incomplete safety measures, unsecured areas, and food storage and cleanliness risks.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act when making decisions about bed rails, checks and sensor alarms. Staff training had gaps, including training for specific conditions and end of life care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as caring and kind. Inspectors observed patient, compassionate and respectful interactions.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Activities were limited, especially for people who spent time in bed or had difficulty joining group activities. Some care plans had missing or inconsistent information.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and quality checks did not reliably identify or correct problems. Managers responded to some issues during the inspection, but governance systems were not yet effective.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and respectful care, but identified safety, consent, training and management problems.
Inspectors visited without notice on 5, 6 and 16 December 2022. They observed care, meals, medicines and staff interactions. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicine records, training files, audits and other documents.
The home was not always safe. Medicines were not always managed properly, some health and environmental risks were not controlled, and records did not always show that care had been given as required. Staff training had gaps, including training for some conditions and important aspects of care.
People were generally treated with kindness, dignity and respect. However, activities were limited for people who spent time in bed or could not join group activities. Care plans were personalised, but some information was missing or inconsistent.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement. The home breached regulations about safe care and treatment, consent, and good governance. CQC asked for an action plan and will monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives generally said staff were kind. Inspectors saw staff treating people with compassion, dignity and respect.
“We observed staff interactions with people which showed people were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's histories and preferences and were reviewed monthly, although some information was missing or inconsistent.
“Care plans were personalised and contained information about people's history, and personal preferences.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People were supported to use services such as GPs, dentists, chiropodists and physiotherapy.
“People had access to regular healthcare services such as GPs, dentists, chiropodists and were supported to attend regular appointments in relation to their health conditions.” from the report
Complaints handled
Complaints were recorded, investigated and answered in line with the home's policy. Inspectors found they were resolved promptly.
“Complaints were recorded, investigated and outcomes documented.” from the report
Medicines and safety checks
seriousMedicine records had gaps and some medicines were not stored or monitored correctly. Inspectors also found that some required checks and care instructions were not followed.
“We found that medicines were not always managed safely throughout the service.” from the report
Health and environmental risks
seriousSome repositioning, safety checks and exercises were not completed as required. Unlocked rooms, chemicals, food storage problems and other hazards were not all fixed during the inspection.
“This put people at risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Consent decisions
seriousThe home did not always record decision-specific mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. Some consent forms were not properly signed or explained.
“The provider did not always ensure that decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were carried out in relation to bed rails.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingTraining records showed gaps in areas including end of life care, oral health, person-centred care, epilepsy, catheter care and Parkinson's disease.
“This meant people could be cared for by staff without the knowledge and skills to fulfil the requirements of their role.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingPeople who spent time in bed or could not join group activities did not always receive meaningful, personalised activities. This could increase the risk of social isolation.
“People were not always supported to follow or engage in meaningful activities, especially people who spent time in bed as there appeared to be limited interaction.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits were sometimes incomplete and did not consistently identify missing records or safety problems. This meant managers did not have a reliable picture of the home's quality and safety.
“The provider's governance systems had not identified these issues and therefore we were not assured about their effectiveness.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make medicine records, fridge checks, expiry dates and patch monitoring reliable?
- 02How do you now check that repositioning, safety checks, bedrails, sensor mats and prescribed exercises are completed?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded for bedrails, sensor alarms and frequent safety checks?
- 04What training have staff completed for end of life care, oral health, person-centred care and conditions such as epilepsy, catheter care and Parkinson's disease?
- 05What personalised activities are available for people who spend time in bed or cannot join group activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous Good rating was from 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 2023 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 Hawthorns Care Centre
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 2020.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Southampton
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 £1,350 a week. 39 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.