Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by BUPA Group

Havering Court Care Home

Havering Road, Havering-atte-Bower, Romford, RM1 4YW

Requires improvementpublished 16 January 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Medicines were not always managed safely. Some records showed medicines had been signed as given before they were taken, and refrigerator temperatures were not measured accurately.
Effective?
Requires improvement
The home did not always follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Capacity and consent records were incomplete, and some restrictions were not properly agreed.
Caring?
Good
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that people's dignity, privacy and choices were respected.
Responsive?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Quality assurance systems had not identified several important shortfalls. The home had a management structure and a positive culture, but its checks were not effective enough.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff but serious weaknesses in medicines, consent and quality checks.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 3 and 8 November 2023. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, training and other documents.

The home was caring, with kind and respectful staff. People were supported with food, drink, activities and healthcare. Staff knew people well, and inspectors found suitable staffing, training and infection control.

However, medicines were not always recorded or stored safely. Records about people's capacity and consent were incomplete, and some restrictions were not properly agreed. Quality checks had failed to identify these problems, including medicines errors and unsuitable fluid targets.

The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. The provider breached regulations about safe care and treatment, consent and good governance. The home must send an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that people were treated with dignity and respect.

    We observed warm and caring interactions between people and staff.from the report
  • Support with eating and drinking

    People's choking, allergy and dietary needs were assessed. Staff supported people safely and kindly at their own pace during lunch.

    Some people were assisted to eat, and this was done safely and kindly.from the report
  • Trained staff

    Staff received induction, training and supervision. Inspectors found that staff could demonstrate the skills and knowledge needed to support people.

    Staff were supported with an induction, training, supervision and performance appraisalsfrom the report
  • Activities and inclusion

    People were offered activities that matched their needs and interests. Inspectors saw people enjoying music and a sensory session.

    We saw lots of people listening, participating and enjoying the music.from the report
  • Risk planning

    Risks such as falls, choking, mobility and pressure ulcers were assessed and had detailed plans to reduce harm.

    Risks such as those for falls, oral health, choking and mobility were identified and there were detailed risk management plans for these risks.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines records and storage

    serious

    Some medicines had been signed as given before they were taken, which could make it appear that a missed dose had been given. Refrigerator temperatures were also not recorded accurately.

    We found discrepancies on some medicine administration records (MAR) which indicated staff had signed that medicines were administered to people in advance of them taking the medicine.from the report
  • Consent and restrictions

    serious

    The home did not always complete capacity assessments or record consent properly. One person's drinks restriction was recorded without evidence of consultation, and another person's covert medicines lacked a capacity assessment.

    There was an inconsistent approach to MCA assessments.from the report
  • Weak quality checks

    serious

    Audits had not found the medicines, consent and fluid-monitoring problems. This meant managers did not have a reliable enough picture of risks in the home.

    The provider had quality assurance systems in place, but they were not used effectively to monitor the safety of the home.from the report
  • Fluid targets not personalised

    needs fixing

    Fluid targets were set at the same level for everyone rather than being based on individual needs. One person had been below their target for four days without the target being reassessed.

    However, we found that fluid targets for each person were set at an identical level which meant they were not targeted to the specific person's fluid needs or requirements.from the report
  • Incomplete incident learning records

    minor

    Records did not always show lessons learned or how repeat incidents would be prevented. Staff said important information was also discussed during handovers and meetings.

    However, the section to record lessons learned and the risk of re-occurrence was not always completedfrom the report
  • Hospital information and IT problems

    needs fixing

    Some hospital passports were being updated, but IT problems meant staff were writing out essential information for transfers. Inspectors were concerned this could delay access to important information in an emergency.

    We were concerned this could hinder staff from accessing essential information if there was an emergency.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have you made to ensure medicines are signed for only after they have been given, and how are refrigerator temperatures now checked?
  2. 02How do you record capacity assessments, consent and best-interest decisions for people who may lack capacity?
  3. 03How do you make sure any restriction on food, drink, movement or medicines is agreed, lawful and reviewed?
  4. 04How are individual fluid targets set and what happens when someone drinks less than their target?
  5. 05What checks now make sure care records, medicines records and hospital passports are complete and up to date?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Havering Court Care Home

5 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Havering Court Care Home

  2. March 2021Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. October 2018Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. June 2015Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. September 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 2010.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Bupa Care Homes (BNH) Limited

25 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Nearby

Other care homes near Romford

Veronica Close

Romford, RM3 · 2.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 2 months agocare home

Nightingale House

Romford, RM2 · 2.6 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home