Recipient

Hibiscus Housing Association Limited

First report 25 Aug 2022•Latest report 25 Aug 2022

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Housing · Registered provider of social housing. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
9

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
11

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
11stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Hibiscus Housing Association Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Black Country

    AI-generated summary

    Charles Evans · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Charles Evans, a resident at Hibiscus House, choked on food in the communal dining room on 29 May 2022, suffered cardiac arrest and severe hypoxic brain injury, and died in hospital the following day. The concerns included inadequate CPR and first-aid provision, absence of a defibrillator and emergency communication arrangements, insufficient staffing and emergency procedures in the dining room, and weaknesses in risk assessment and reporting processes.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of an emergency response procedure

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of staff training in CPR

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to establish and implement a service-provider action plan for improving quality and safety

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a proper procedure for staff to report concerns about residents

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of reliable emergency communication facilities in the residents’ dining room

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure staff know who else is on duty

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to conduct further risk assessments after a resident’s return from hospital

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unavailability of a defibrillator on site

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unavailability of a registered first aider on the premises

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of staff presence in the communal dining room during mealtimes

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Hibiscus Housing Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to monitor progress towards the quality and safety action plan

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Faye Cadogan Registered Manager Hibiscus House and Norma Chambers Catering Assistant at Hibiscus House. 1. None of the Carers employed at Hibiscus House had any training in CPR. The carer on duty was qualified to Level 2 Diploma in Health & Social care which does not include any training in first aid; 2. At the time of the incident there were no staff members trained in CPR (Coroner was told this had been rectified post Mr Evans death); 3. There was no Registered First Aider at the premises; 4. There was no defibrillator on site; 5. There was no requirement for any staff to be on duty in the communal dining room during mealtimes despite the fact the Hibiscus House could cater for residents with special dietary requirements; 6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents’ dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help; 7. There was no procedure for what should happen in an emergency situation (in this instance the catering staff member who found Mr Evans located a carer instead of calling 999 themselves; 8. Staff did not know who else was on duty at any given time; 9. There was no proper procedure in place for staff to report concerns about residents; 10. No further risk assessments were being conducted if a resident returned to Hibiscus House after a hospital admission to ensure the facility could still meet the needs of the resident (Coroner was told staff relied on a discharge summary and/or the GP); 11. Post inquest, the Coroner noted the CQC Inspection report for Hibiscus House Domiciliary Care Agency dated July 2019 which rated the facility as ‘requiring improvement’. The Coroner is concerned to establish whether the service provider put forward an action plan following the CQC Inspection setting out what they would do to improve the standards of quality and safety and whether the CQC monitored any progress towards said plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provide formal first-aider training to four employees.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “On 17 October 2022 all employees of Hibiscus undertook First Aid Workplace Awareness training provided by High Speed Training. Additionally, four employees of Hibiscus will undertake First Aider Training via St John’s Ambulance which is scheduled for the end of October.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Seek quotations for purchasing a permanently located on-site defibrillator.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There is no compulsory requirement to purchase a defibrillator to comply with the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981. Hibiscus however have actively sought quotes for the purchase of a defibrillator which can be kept permanently on the premises. Once an appropriate defibrillator has been purchased, Hibiscus will ensure that all staff are aware of its location when contacting the emergency services and are fully trained in its use.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 3 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement the Birdie electronic system for recording tenant observations, concerns, incidents and notes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Hibiscus has since implemented a new IT system called “Birdie”. This is accessible on computers and staff members’ phones, and it is used to log any observations and concerns about particular tenants. The Manager has access to all resident files on Birdie. The carers who have specific service users will only have access to their service user’s details in order to maintain data protection. Where a tenant requires a different carer (whether due to change of carer, holiday cover etc), the manager will allow the carer access to that resident’s file on Birdie.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 5 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement a written emergency procedure, embed it in risk assessments and the improvement plan, and train staff on it.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since this tragic incident Hibiscus have, with the assistance of their consultants, Delphi, and in conjunction with the CQC, implemented a formal procedure and provided training to its staff on the steps to take in an emergency situation. This procedure is now in written form reflected in risk assessments and forms part of Hibiscus’ new improvement plan. This is attached.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 4 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Draw up an action plan addressing the three improvement areas identified by the CQC.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The current Chief Officer ████████ has been in post since 3 March 2020 and upon joining Hibiscus drew up an Action Plan for the three areas of improvement which were identified by the CQC. Training had been put in place to address specific issues, however could not be undertaken for a significant length of time due to COVID restrictions. At this point work had already been undertaken to redesign care plans and upgrade systems which held vital information, but there was difficulty in implementing this. There was no monitoring of, or involvement by the CQC in this regard.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 6 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provide CPR training to all employees and refresh it annually.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Hibiscus have engaged Delphi to assist in creating a planned programme of training. All employees of Hibiscus have now undertaken CPR training. CPR Awareness training commenced 29 July 2022 and was complete by 5 August 2022. This will be refreshed every year.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Introduce a formal first-aid duty rota after the four employees complete first-aider training.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There is no formal first aid duty rota in place, however with all staff being trained and the overlap of shifts which cover the week, there will always be at least one person who has first aid awareness on site. After the four employees have undertaken First Aider Training with St John’s Ambulance, a formal rota will be put in place.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Reassess tenants returning from hospital, including Care Manager risk assessment, ongoing observation and recording outcomes in tenant files and Birdie.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Hibiscus has ensured that new procedures are in place for a reassessment should a tenant attend hospital and subsequently be discharged home. Faye Cadogan advised the Coroner at the inquest that where a tenant had attended hospital previously, the discharge letter was relied upon to inform the staff of any changes in that tenant’s needs.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 5 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continuous staff supervision of the communal dining room is not considered necessary because the accommodation is not a nursing or residential care facility.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It should be noted that there was no carer “on duty” at the time of Mr Evans’ incident. As Hibiscus is not a nursing facility there is no requirement to always have a person on duty at the premises. On the day, Mr Evans’ package of care services finished at approximately 7.00am and there was no further care planned for him that day. In the afternoon Mr Evans chose to have his lunch in the dining area which he was entitled to do. The dining area is a communal dining area and there is no requirement for it to be supervised.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The concern that no emergency alarm was available in the dining room is disputed because a functioning Care Link pull cord was installed there.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “6. There was no emergency bell/alarm or telephone in the residents dining room. Staff were expected to use their mobile phone to call for help.”

    Source location

    Response from Hibiscus House
    Page 3 · response
    Published 4 November 2022

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
64%9%27%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026