- Care home
Hawthorne Nursing Home
Assessment report published 19 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of Hawthorne Nursing Home, a nursing home providing care for 25 people at the time of the inspection, many of whom were living with dementia and complex health needs. The inspection took place over two days on 24 February 2026 and 24 March 2026 was carried out following concerns being raised.
People were supported with a wide range of needs including dementia, mobility support, pressure care, end‑of‑life care, Parkinson’s disease and the administration of time‑critical medicines.
We identified concerns around safety and governance. Environmental risks were not consistently managed, including fire safety arrangements, damaged fixtures and equipment that could not be cleaned effectively. Actions from fire risk assessments had not all been completed. These issues increased risks to people’s safety.
Infection prevention and control practices were not consistently effective. We found poor cleaning of equipment and damaged items, such as pressure cushions and mattress covers, that could not be cleaned effectively. This placed people at increased risk of infection.
People’s care records were not always clear or consistent. Some care plans and risk assessments lacked sufficient detail or contained contradictory information. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance on how to manage risks or respond to changes in people’s needs.
Medicines were stored securely and audits were in place. However, medicines management was not consistently safe, including gaps in infection control practices during administration and incomplete guidance for some ‘as required’ medicines. This increased the risk of unsafe medicines practices.
The service had experienced several recent changes in management with a change in manager between the first and second day of inspection. While people and relatives spoke positively about the management team, quality assurance systems were not yet effective. Leaders had not identified or addressed all the risks found during this inspection, including those relating to the environment, infection control and care planning. During the recent disruptions in management, leaders had not always maintained effective oversight of the running of the service. Some improvements had been made between the 2 inspection days.
People's experience of this service
People had mixed experiences of living at Hawthorne Nursing Home. Many people and relatives spoke positively about staff being kind, caring and familiar, and said they generally felt safe. Relatives told us staff knew people well, responded promptly to concerns and monitored people effectively, including those at risk of falls or who required frequent repositioning. People said they were usually able to make everyday choices, such as what to wear, when to get up and what to eat. There were no restrictions on visiting, and people were supported to maintain contact with relatives. Inspectors observed some positive, compassionate interactions where staff reassured people and supported them respectfully. Call bells were answered in a timely way. However, we also observed that people’s day‑to‑day experiences were not always engaging or consistently person centred, particularly for people who could not easily communicate their needs.
At times, staff interactions were task‑focused, with limited explanation or reassurance during moving and handling or hoisting. This meant some people were not fully involved or supported to understand what was happening to them. People’s experiences of activities were variable. Some people enjoyed one‑to‑one interactions, such as hand massages or conversations with the activities coordinator. However, structured observation (SOFI) in communal areas showed that many people were disengaged for long periods, with limited meaningful interaction or stimulation. People who were unable to communicate verbally were often left watching television without support to engage or participate. People’s experiences of mealtimes were also mixed. People were offered choices, and special diets were catered for, including modified and fortified meals. However, menus were not clearly visible for most people, meals were not always explained, and the dining environment lacked stimulation. Some interactions were rushed, which affected people’s enjoyment of the mealtime experience. For people who were unable to communicate verbally, structured observation showed that while physical needs were generally met, emotional wellbeing and meaningful engagement were not consistently supported. Staff did not always recognise opportunities to reassure, interact with or actively include people during routine care or time spent in communal areas. Overall, although people were supported by staff who were mostly kind and familiar, improvements were needed to ensure people’s experiences were consistently person centred, engaging and inclusive, particularly for people living with dementia or complex communication needs.