You are here

Archived: Hanom House

We are carrying out an inspection to see whether improvements we required at Hanom House have been put in place. We will publish a report when our check is complete.


Inspection carried out on 23, 25 July 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited the home we spoke with all four of the people who live there. When we asked them how they liked the home, they told us they felt the home was good:

“Yes, it is fine. The staff are all right.”

“The staff are nice.”

“It is good.”

“I think it is good. There used to be more to do though.”

However, when we asked them what activities they were involved in, one person told us they wanted to do more.

People did not experience care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People were not cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

The provider had not taken steps to provide care in an environment that is suitably designed and adequately maintained.

People were not cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

The registered person had not notified the CQC without delay of all notifiable incidents.

Inspection carried out on 3 September 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We spoke with three of the four people who live at the home. They told us they felt involved in decisions about their care and in the running of the home. Two of them mentioned that there were residents’ meetings that took place. They told us that not much had changed since we last visited in April and that life at the home was still the same.

All three people told us they liked the staff and that they were nice. One person said, “Yeah, the staff, they are good. They are always around.”

When we arrived at the home, one person’s room was being cleaned as in accordance with their care plan. We observed staff talking respectfully to the people who use the service. When we looked around the house we could see renovations had taken place. The communal areas of the house were clean. There was food, including fresh fruit, available in the kitchen.

Inspection carried out on 24 April 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We spoke with all four people using the service. People told us that they were happy there and that they felt safe. One person said: “I am happy. I go out and about.”, and another said that, “It is not so bad here”.

All of the people that we spoke to said that they liked the staff and that they would try and help them. One person said: “the staff are always nice to you, they look after you”. People said they felt safe.

People enjoyed the freedom and flexibility at the home and were able to come and go as they wished. We spoke to people using the service about the activities that were provided for them. Most said that they were happy with what was available but they would rather not participate in organised activities.

People told us that there had been some improvements to the physical environment at the home and that they had received some new furniture. None of the people we spoke to raised any concerns about their rooms. However, we were also told that the environment was still not as good at it could be. One person told us that, “There has been a little improvement, but the house is falling apart.”

People using the service told us they could make suggestions about the service and felt able to raise any concerns.

Inspection carried out on 9 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People living at Hanom House were generally very positive about living at the home. People said they thought the home provided the right support for their needs and they felt able to raise any concerns with the manager. They said the staff were helpful and treated them with respect.

One person told us that his keyworker at the home often prepared Eritrean-style food for him and he greatly appreciated this. We saw that one person had a physical disability and could not easily access the garden or first floor living room but he said he did not want anything to be changed and did not want to use these areas.

People said they had enough to do. The provider itself organised some activities for the people living in its homes in Haringey (for example, swimming) but the people living at Hanom House told us they generally preferred not to participate.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)