Archived: Haddon Court Nursing Home

Updated 30 March 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 22 September 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team was made up of two adult social care inspectors, one pharmacist specialist inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR).

This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, which included correspondence we had received and any notifications submitted to us by the service. A notification must be sent to the Care Quality Commission every time a significant incident has taken place, for example where a person who uses the service experiences a serious injury.

Before our inspection we contacted staff at Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. They told us they had received two negative comments about Haddon Court in the previous five months. We also contacted members of Sheffield City Council contracts and commissioning service and the NHS Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group. They told us they had been jointly monitoring the service and trying to support the provider to improve as they had concerns regarding the quality of support provided to people who used the service.

During the inspection we spoke with six people who lived at Haddon Court and eight relatives who were visiting. We spoke with five visiting professionals. We met with the registered manager and nominated individual. We spoke with an additional ten members of staff. We spent time looking at written records, which included four people’s care records, six staff files and other records relating to the management of the service. We checked the medication administration records for eight people.

Updated 30 March 2017

We carried out this inspection on 22 September 2016. The inspection was unannounced. This meant no-one at the service knew that we were planning to visit.

Haddon Court was last inspected by CQC on 15 September 2014 and was compliant with the regulations in force at that time.

Haddon Court is a nursing home registered for up to 80 people situated within Beighton Village, approximately five miles from the city centre of Sheffield. The home is within easy access of the local community, which has a selection of shops and churches. Haddon Court is a large purpose built three-storey care home. It provides nursing and personal care for older people who have a physical disability, nursing needs or are living with dementia. The provider has temporarily closed the top floor of this service to focus on supporting people living with dementia. There were 53 people living at Haddon Court at the time of our inspection.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they liked living at Haddon Court and they felt safe there. Relatives said they felt their family member was safe at Haddon Court.

All staff understood what it meant to protect people from abuse. They told us they were confident any concerns they raised would be taken seriously by management.

Not all medicines were stored safely. We found gaps in medication administration records which meant people may not have always have been given their medicines at the right time. Medication administration records were not regularly audited to check that medicines were given to people as prescribed.

People’s care records included risk assessments; however some contained gaps in recording information, and others were incorrectly completed. This meant staff didn’t always have all the necessary information required to meet people’s needs as safely as possible.

Care staff we spoke with had received training on understanding the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were able to give examples of what this meant in practice.

Care records did not reflect whether a person had capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. The registered manager had referred everyone living at Haddon Court for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation. This blanket approach was not necessary and meant they may not have fully understood their responsibilities with regard to the MCA.

Staff were provided with appropriate training, regular supervisions and an annual appraisal to ensure they were suitable for their job and supported in their role.

We saw people had access to external health professionals and this was evidenced in people’s care records.

People living at Haddon Court and their relatives told us staff were caring and supportive. We saw and heard positive interactions between people and staff.

People told us they enjoyed the variety of food and drinks available to them. We saw there were different options available at mealtimes, and drinks and snacks were made available throughout the day.

People living at Haddon Court and staff working there, told us the registered manager was approachable and responsive to any concerns they had.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance.

There were no records of any meetings with people, their relatives or staff. This meant that although people and staff may have been asked for their views, their responses were not recorded and therefore not necessarily acted on. There was evidence of regular quality audits being undertaken. However, there was no record of any actions to be taken as a result. In addition in some audits we saw areas had been ticked as compliant but this did not correlate with what we found.

During our inspection, we found five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, relating to safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment, safe care and treatment, fit and proper persons employed, need for consent, and good governance.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.