Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by St. Matthews

Hawthorne House

Jardine Crescent, Coventry, CV4 9QS

Requires improvementpublished 6 September 2024, 23 months ago

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

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Hawthorne House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe gaps in risk management, medicines, staffing and oversight.

This was an unannounced, focused inspection after concerns about risks in people's care and medicines. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed 17 care plans and five medicines records, and observed a medicines round.

The home was not always safe. Records did not consistently show that checks and care had happened. Medicines were not always given or recorded safely. Staffing levels and arrangements meant some people experienced delays or lacked supervision. Infection control and recruitment checks were good.

The home was also not always well led. Checks did not reliably find problems or ensure they were put right quickly. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in May 2021, to Requires Improvement. The provider must make improvements and send CQC an action plan.

What inspectors praised

  • Infection control

    Staff followed good infection prevention processes. Protective equipment was available and clinical waste was disposed of safely.

    “The prevention and control of infection was managed safely. Good infection prevention and control processes were followed.” from the report

  • Respectful staff

    People generally spoke positively about staff and said they were treated with respect.

    “People told us staff treated them with respect.” from the report

  • Mental capacity safeguards

    Mental capacity assessments and liberty safeguards were in place where needed. Staff understood which people had these arrangements and why.

    “We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report

  • Recruitment checks

    The home carried out references and criminal record checks before staff started work.

    “Staff had been recruited following a number of checks to ensure they were safe to work with people.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Risk checks were not reliable

    serious

    Records did not show that some important checks had happened, including repositioning, blood sugar monitoring and frequent checks for someone at risk of falling. Worn walking-frame parts also increased falls risk.

    “Records failed to show that checks detailed in people's care plans were completed in a timely manner.” from the report

  • Medicines were not always safe

    serious

    There were gaps in medicines records, missing paperwork for hidden medicines, incomplete storage checks and risks with medicines given through feeding tubes. Some staff also lacked important medicines knowledge.

    “People did not always receive their medicines safely or as prescribed. Records were not sufficiently clear to show how medicines had been managed.” from the report

  • Staffing affected care

    serious

    Staffing arrangements meant some people had delayed personal care or pain relief, lacked supervision, or could not attend planned activities.

    “Staffing arrangements meant people some people were placed at risk of unsafe care.” from the report

  • Management checks missed problems

    serious

    Quality checks did not consistently identify or address risks. This included unsafe equipment, medicines problems, staffing issues and unexplained injuries.

    “The provider's systems and processes to monitor the quality of the service provided were not always effective.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make sure repositioning, blood sugar checks and falls monitoring are recorded every time?
  2. 02How are medicines now checked, including medicines hidden in food, medicines given through PEG tubes and medicines that are out of stock?
  3. 03How will you ensure there are enough staff on every unit so people receive personal care, pain relief, supervision and planned activities without delay?
  4. 04What changes have been made to quality audits so they identify faulty walking frames, uncalibrated equipment and medicines risks promptly?
  5. 05How are unexplained injuries investigated, and how do you show that learning from incidents has been put into practice?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key-question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 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 Hawthorne House

4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

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

    Read what inspectors found at Hawthorne House →

  2. May 2021Goodup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

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

  3. May 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. March 2019Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2017

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 July 2017.

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.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Same provider

Other services run by St. Matthews Limited

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

Willow Brook House

Corby, NN17
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Althorp Grange

Northampton, NN6
Inadequate
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

St Matthews Unit

Northampton, NN2
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Coventry

All in Coventry

Ash House

Coventry, CV4 · 0.4 km
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 14 months agocare home

Aspect House

Coventry, CV4 · 1.2 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 months agocare home

Victoria Gardens

Coventry, CV4 · 1.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home

Allesley Hall

Coventry, CV5 · 1.7 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home