- Care home
Hawthorn Court
Assessment report published 12 June 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 23 April to 13 May 2025.
Hawthorn Court is a care home providing accommodation and personal care to a maximum of 62 older people, younger adults, including people who may live with dementia, physical disability or sensory impairment needs. At the time of our unannounced visit, 61 people were using the service. A manager was in post who had applied to become registered with the Care Quality Commission.
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the manager and the changes and new initiatives introduced at the service. However, some improvements were required to some systems and governance to ensure people received safe, effective and person-centred care.
The environment was well-maintained, bright and welcoming and people enjoyed a well-cultivated garden. There was a good standard of hygiene. There was an on-going programme of refurbishment around the home. We signposted that the environment should be appropriately designed to meet the needs of people who may live with dementia or a dementia related condition to keep them orientated and informed.
People received a varied diet. We discussed the improvements that could be made to people’s dining experience to ensure people received appropriate support if needed.
Staff knew how to support people in a way which respected their decisions and supported them to make choices. Information was accessible, however, people did not always have information in formats to suit them, for example, when choosing meals or activities for the day.
There were sufficient trained staff who worked with other professionals to ensure people's needs were met in a safe way. However, as staff were busy, people werenot always engaged and occupied with activities, if they wished, and they did not always receive timely care.
Most risks to people had been assessed and care plans were in place to help mitigate risks as far as possible. Care records were detailed and reflected people's care needs. Accidents and incidents were investigated thoroughly, action taken, and lessons learned. Overall medicines were managed safely but some improvements were needed to medicine management.
Equipment was available to meet people’s needs and to help maintain their independence. People’s mental capacity and ability to consent was taken into account, and people and their representatives were involved in planning their care and support. Staff received training to help ensure they were competent to carry out their role to ensure people’s care and safety.
There was robust recruitment of new staff. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the service and management. People, relatives and staff were consulted and asked to give their feedback about service provision.
Governance was mostly effective, however more frequent audits were needed, to ensure and maintain the quality and safety of service provision.
People's experience of this service
People, relatives and professionals were very positive about the service and complimentary about the care provided by staff. Their comments included, “The way people are treated, I have only got favourable things to say”, “This is a 5-star service”, “The staff are so kind”, “All in 1 place what I want, the staff are doing their best to help us”, and “I can’t praise them enough, we know where [Name] is, and what they are doing.” People and their relatives told us they were safe, and they were listened to. Their comments included, “[Name] is safer here. We can spend more quality time with them”, “I am safe without a doubt. The place is secure.” There were enough competent staff to meet people’s needs safely. However, as staff were busy, they did not have time to interact with people, except when they provided care, and some people told us they had to wait for assistance. We received mixed feedback about staffing levels and staff deployment. Peoples’ comments included, “Often you have to wait. I am prepared to wait. Sometimes it does not matter, but sometimes it does”, “There are not enough staff, you have to wait”, “I do get the support, I use the buzzer, staff are prompt, good. They could do with a few more carers, they are busy”, “There are enough staff for me” and “I use the buzzer, if necessary, I do not often have to use it as staff are always on hand.” People had access to activities and entertainment to support their health and well-being. However, we observed people were not occupied or stimulated as staff were busy and staff did not all interact with people, except when they provided care. Peoples’ and relatives’ comments included, “Upstairs the residents some are just sitting about sleeping”, “It depends how busy staff are, if they chat”, “The school children are local, they come in here. There were Irish dancers from 1 school came in”, “There seems to be more on downstairs, there was a singer last week”, “I think there are activities” and [Name] has been to the farm, out for dinner and the bingo.” People enjoyed a varied diet. Where people were at risk of poor nutrition and or hydration their intake was monitored. Peoples’ and relatives’ comments included, “The food is excellent” and “It is better food than places I havebeen to around the world, very good.” People’s health, care and treatment needs were met, with the involvement of appropriate professionals where needed. A person told us, “The nurse practitioner comes in, they are nice. They visit regularly.” People were supported to maintain their independence and positive risk taking was promoted. People’s comments included, “I just need a walker, I would be snookered without it” and “Staff make sure you are doing what you can.” People told us they were listened to; they were supported to make choices and were involved in decision making about their care and support. A person told us, “Staff take note of all you say, and take action if needed.”