Our current view of the service
Updated
30 June 2026
Date of assessment: 7 July to 7 August 2026.
Hadfield House is a residential care home for people requiring nursing or personal care. Hadfield House has 28 rooms available. At the time of the inspection, 28 people were residing at the care home.
At this inspection, we found the provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations in relation to good governance and staffing.
People were not always protected from avoidable risks. Incidents were not consistently reviewed by management and learning from safety concerns was not always shared with staff. Safeguarding concerns were not always reported appropriately to CQC, safeguarding training completion rates were low and effective oversight of safeguarding concerns was not demonstrated.
People’s key information was not always obtained when they moved into the home and hospital passports were not consistently up to date. Care plans and risk assessments did not always contain clear, accurate and sufficiently detailed information to guide staff safely. Medicines records were not always complete and there was insufficient evidence that staff had received appropriate medicines training and competency checks. Staff did not always receive effective supervision, support and development. However, the environment and equipment were safe, and the home was clean and well maintained.
People did not always have sufficient involvement in their care planning and were not consistently informed about their care plans and risk assessments. Care records did not always provide staff with sufficient information to meet people’s needs effectively. Records relating to nutrition and hydration, observations and mouth care were not consistently completed, and there was limited evidence that people’s goals and aspirations had been considered. Consent documentation was not always in place. Staff worked well with external professionals and people were supported to maintain healthier lives.
Staff treated people, relatives and professionals with care, dignity and respect. People were offered choice and control, and staff responded appropriately to people’s immediate needs and involved external services when required. However, people were not always supported as individuals because care records lacked sufficient detail about their individual needs, preferences and wishes. Some staff also reported that they did not always feel well treated by the provider.
People’s care records were not consistently person centred and did not always provide sufficient information about how their individual needs and preferences should be met. The provider needed to improve how information was provided in accessible formats. End of life care plans did not always contain sufficient detail to guide staff effectively. People and their relatives had opportunities to raise concerns through residents’ and relatives’ meetings. No concerns regarding discrimination were reported.
The service did not have effective governance arrangements in place. Management had not identified or addressed many of the concerns found during the inspection, and systems for monitoring quality, safety and continuous improvement were not sufficiently effective. Staff reported some cultural issues within the service and not all staff felt they were treated well by the provider. However, staff reported that they were treated equally and there were no concerns about discrimination. The provider needed to strengthen its oversight and quality assurance systems to ensure concerns were identified promptly, learning was shared and improvements were sustained.
People's experience of the service
Updated
30 June 2026
People generally described feeling safe, comfortable and well supported. During the inspection, people appeared relaxed and at ease with staff. People and relatives spoke positively about the support provided and felt staff were available when needed. Most people considered staffing levels sufficient, including during evenings and weekends, although some noted that staffing could occasionally be reduced. Relatives described a settled staff team, with familiar staff regularly working at the service.
Most people were not aware of their care plans or whether they could access them. However, relatives reported being involved in care planning and discussions about their family members’ needs. This demonstrated positive family involvement but highlighted an opportunity to support people to better understand and access information about their own care.
People did not raise concerns regarding the premises, equipment or the management of their medicines. They spoke positively about their bedrooms and facilities, and relatives generally considered the home clean and well maintained. However, some relatives raised concerns about the presentation and cleanliness of rooms at admission including limited storage, shared bathroom facilities, falls risks and restricted visiting space.
People were supported with their nutrition and hydration. Drinks were offered regularly, and staff encouraged people who required additional support to drink. Mealtimes were calm, sociable and well organised. Staff provided patient support and responded to people’s individual needs and preferences. People generally described the food as wholesome and home cooked, with alternatives provided when requested. Relatives were positive about the support provided with eating and reported that people’s weight had remained stable. Some relatives highlighted the importance of staff consistently understanding individual hydration and communication needs, particularly following admission.
People consistently described staff as kind, caring and approachable. Staff took time to speak with people, showed an interest in their lives and were not observed rushing them. Warm and trusting relationships were evident, with humour and friendly interaction observed throughout the inspection. People said they were supported to make choices about their daily routines, personal care and clothing. Staff sought people’s consent before providing support and encouraged them to maintain their independence.
People were offered a range of activities based on their interests and preferences. During the inspection, people were engaged in a baking activity and appeared happy and involved. Activities included crafts, quizzes, exercise, games, celebrations, entertainment and visits to the local park. People who preferred individual activities or time alone said these choices were respected. Relatives felt staff made efforts to include people who were unable to participate fully.
People and relatives generally felt communication with the service was good. Relatives said they were kept informed and involved in discussions about care. People knew who to approach if they had concerns and felt comfortable speaking with the registered manager or senior staff. Most people reported having no complaints and described the service as caring, organised and well managed.
The registered manager was visible and actively involved throughout the inspection. They were approachable and responsive and took prompt action when concerns were raised. Staff morale appeared positive, and relationships between staff and people using the service were warm, familiar and meaningful.
Overall, people’s experiences were positive. People generally felt safe, cared for and supported to make choices and maintain their independence. Areas for further consideration included improving people’s awareness of their care plans, ensuring newly admitted people’s needs were fully understood, maintaining appropriate standards within rooms at admission, and responding to concerns relating to hydration, shared facilities, falls risks and visiting space.