Hadfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider did not always ensure care plans were detailed, person centred and clearly described the care, treatment and support needs of the people supported. Risks and actions staff should take were not always documented and sometimes were not person centred.

People’s care plans did not always include information about people’s capacity and did not always detail how they should be involved in their care and lifestyle choices, including making decisions for themselves.

However, the provider ensured there was a consistent staff team, which meant staff knew people well and staff were consistently respectful, warm and attentive within their interactions.

The provider ensured care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider demonstrated how they worked across social care and community services to provide coordinated care.

People and relatives knew the staff well. There was a high staff retention rate meaning there was a continuity of care. A relative told us, they believed their loved one was getting “Above and beyond” what was funded for at the service.

An external professional stated, “The manager has a good understanding of enhanced funding arrangements and, where appropriate, submits applications to the local authority in a timely manner.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans were not always accurate and up to date. They did not always contain sufficient detail regarding people’s communication needs. We raised this with the provider who took immediate steps to resolve this.

The activity planner was not up to date and the activities being completed by the activity’s coordinator did not match what was on the planner.

The provider had an incomplete notice board which was supposed to outline the residents wants and how the provider had responded. Furthermore, the notice board contained details of an infection prevention and control audit which took place in May 2025, demonstrating how information was not current.

The provider was supporting a person whose first language was not English, but we did not see any adaptations throughout the care home to support them, nor had the provider translated documentation.

The provider did not evidence easy read materials for people who had difficulties reading or writing.

However, people and relatives provided positive responses in relation to how the service communicated with them.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint to the provider and had no concerns about doing so. One person said, “If I had a complaint, I'd talk to [registered manager] but most of the staff are approachable. It’s very good here, a caring place.”

The provider ensured the residents had monthly meetings. These meetings were minuted and covered a range of topics which were then acted on by the provider.

People were encouraged to engage with activities within the home. If they did not wish to do so, alternative arrangements were made, in which the activities coordinator provided one to one conversation.

However, despite the registered manager telling us the service had received no formal complaints, they were unable to provide a record of concerns which had been raised and any learning which had come from them.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care plans did not always contain the appropriate level of detail in relation to people’s mobility, communication and sensory needs.

People medication care plans showed that not all people on high-risk medicines, such as anti – epileptic drugs or anticoagulants, had individualised medication care plans in place. This may lead to unequal access to safe and person-centred care, because those with more complex needs might not be getting the additional support they require to achieve equitable outcomes. However, people and staff felt the service was accessible for people and the provider ensured there were arrangements in place to ensure there were senior members of the team on call to support with emergencies when out of hours.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People and staff raised no concerns about discrimination within the service and felt people were treated equally.

Staff were observed respecting people’s reasonable adjustments including supporting those with mobility needs with equipment to aid them, adhering to people’s religious and cultural needs when documented and respecting people’s rights to be private within the home.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The care plans of 2 people who had recently been on end-of-life care were reviewed. The care plans lacked the detail which would be expected when a person is coming towards the end of their life. For example, the preferred place of death, comfort measures which had been implemented, people they wished to have present at the time of their death, plans for managing common end of life symptoms including breathlessness and respiratory secretions was not included and updates regarding whether assisted nutrition or hydration was needed was not present.

The provider did not evidence that advanced care planning had been offered to people being cared for within the home.

However, a relative of a person who had been receiving end of life care was complimentary about the care their loved one had received. They described staff being kind, compassionate and putting them at ease at the end of their life. Furthermore, staff told us they received training on end-of-life care.