Hawksbury House

Updated 11 July 2025

Date of Inspection: 5 to 19 December 2025. Hawksbury House Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 35 people. The service provides support to older people and people who were living with a dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people using the service. This inspection was completed due to the length of time since the last rated inspection.

At the last inspection we found the provider was not meeting legal requirements in relation to the governance of the service and we also made a recommendation around how ensuring staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and its code of practice. At this inspection improvements had been made, the service was no longer in breach of regulations, and the recommendation was met. The provider and registered manager ensured the quality assurance system they had in place was effective. They encouraged people to share their views and always looked to see what improvements could be made. The management team were constantly looking to see where there were gaps in practice continually reviewed existing practise to check they remained effective and over the last year had made a wide range of improvements.

The provider and staff team were passionate about delivering good care and support. A new registered manager and deputy manager came into post this year and they have worked diligently to improve practices at the service, and the provider has completed a full refurbishment of the building. They worked with staff to encourage a shared vision, strategy and culture. The provider clearly valued the staff and promoted operating the service in extremely person-centred ways. The management team were very visible throughout the service and assisted staff to keep abreast of developments in the service.

Care was person-centred and tailored to individual needs. Comprehensive assessments were completed before admission and reviewed regularly. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s preferences and worked closely with relatives and healthcare professionals to ensure timely support. Health needs were monitored effectively, and GP visits and medication reviews were arranged promptly. Staff sought consent before providing care. The management team had provided more training around the application of the MCA and staff now completed capacity assessment and ‘best interests’ decisions in line with expected practice.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s needs and how to best meet them. Staffing levels were generally appropriate although some relatives noted occasional delays during busy periods. The provider continually monitored people’s needs and ensured staff were effectively deployed to promptly meet people’s personal care needs. Activities were varied and meaningful, including baking, music sessions and spiritual opportunities such as weekly church services. People had access to pleasant communal spaces and well-maintained gardens, which contributed to a calm and homely atmosphere.

People’s nutrition and hydration preferences were identified and supported. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s preferences and dislikes regarding food. There was a strong emphasis on involving people with menu reviews and choices. People were very positive about the food on offer.

The home was clean, and infection risks were assessed and managed. The management team demonstrated they had developed a strong learning culture, which used themed supervision to ensure staff constantly developed their skills. This had led to prompt safeguarding responses being made. From a review of concerns the management team found the laundry service was not always effective. In response the provider had employed more laundry staff and was in the process of reorganising the laundry rooms to provide a better flow from dirty to clean areas. Medicines were administered safely using an electronic management system, which the provider and staff found enhanced safety and efficiency.

Updated 11 July 2025

People told us they felt safe, happy, and well cared for at Hawksbury House. Most relatives expressed confidence in the service, describing staff as “warm, cheerful and approachable” and saying their loved ones were settled and comfortable. We observed positive, respectful interactions between staff and people, creating a friendly and relaxed atmosphere throughout the home. A relative said, “My mum is happy there and more importantly safe. She is well looked after. The staff are lovely from management to housekeeping all are happy helpful and friendly.”

People were supported to make choices about their daily lives. Menus were reviewed with people’s input, and food was described as “really well cooked,” “there’s always plenty of it” and “tasty.” People were actively involved in the recruitment process and within meeting forums whereby people and relatives chaired their respective meetings, such as The Friends of Hawksbury House group. The management team used their feedback to shape the operation of the service. These opportunities promoted independence and social engagement. One person said, “I get a say in how Hawksbury House is run and can truly say our views are listened to.” A relative told us, “The management hold meetings with the residents family members to go over any changes etc and also send emails out.”

Some people had very limited verbal communication. We used a structured observation tool to assess whether they received good care. This approach showed people were included and listened to, and staff worked with people in a sensitive, caring and considerate manner. The provider sought regular advocate support, and this team routinely visited the service.

Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion and treated people as individuals. One person told us, “The staff are really lovely,” and “It might not be a posh as other homes, but it is really lovely here and the staff are so kind.” Care plans were person-centred and regularly reviewed, and staff actively involved people and their families in decisions about care and risk management. People told us they trusted staff and felt respected. Consent was sought before care was provided, and records showed mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were documented where required. One person told us, “They never do a thing without asking me first.” We observed this practice included domestic staff checking if they could move items of furniture out to get to difficult to clean areas prior to undertaking this task.

Relatives and professionals praised staff knowledge and responsiveness, and most felt communication was good, with meetings and email updates about changes. A few relatives raised concerns about personal care and laundry, including missing or damaged clothing and people occasionally appearing unkempt. These issues relatives felt impacted dignity and required ongoing attention. The management team were aware of the difficulties with the laundry and had put measures in place to address them.