Archived: Sancroft Hall

Updated 10 November 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 is 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 9 and 10 August 2017 and was unannounced. T

The inspection team comprised of two inspectors and an 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.

During our inspection we spoke with eight people who lived at Sancroft Hall and three visiting family members. We also spoke with six care staff, the activities co-ordinator, the deputy manager, two assistant managers and a regional director from the provider company. Following the inspection we spoke with a representative from the local commissioning authority.

We spent time observing care and support being delivered in the main communal areas. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We looked at records, which included nine care records, nine staff records and records relating to the management of the service.

Before the inspection the provider completed 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. We reviewed the information included in the PIR along with other information we held about the home.

Updated 10 November 2017

Our inspection of Sancroft Hall took place on 9 and 10 August 2017. This was an unannounced inspection.

At our previous inspection of Sancroft Hall in August 2016 we found that the service was not meeting the requirements of the law in relation to the planning and recording of care for people who lived at the home. During this inspection we found that the provider had made improvements in order to meet the requirements identified at the previous inspection.

Sancroft Hall is a care home situated in Harrow. The home is registered to provide care to up to 50 older people. Care is provided in five 'houses' of 10 people each. Two of the houses are specifically for elderly Asian people, and some of the people residing at the home are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 46 people living at Sancroft Hall.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 who lived at Sancroft Hall told us that they felt safe. We found that people were protected from the risk of abuse or other harm. Staff members had received training in safeguarding, and were able to demonstrate their understanding of what this meant for the people they

were supporting. They were also knowledgeable about their role in ensuring that people were safe and that concerns were reported appropriately.

The medicines for people who lived at the home were well managed. Staff members administering medicines to people had received training to support them in this.

Staff at the home supported people in a caring and respectful way, and responded promptly to meet their needs and requests. There were enough staff members on duty to meet their physical and other needs and people told us that they did not have to wait for support when required. People who remained in their rooms for part of the day were regularly checked on.

The staff who worked at the home received regular training and they were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. Appropriate checks took place as part of the recruitment process to ensure that staff were suitable for the work that they would be undertaking. All staff members received regular supervision from a manager, and those whom we spoke with told us that they felt well supported.

The home was meeting the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Information about people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support was contained within their care files. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been made to the relevant local authority. DoLS authorisations are required for people living in care homes where they do not have capacity to look after their person safety and are supervised to ensure that they are safe within the home and outside. Staff members had received training in MCA and DoLS. Where necessary they had involved other professions and family members in making decisions about people's best interests.

People's nutritional needs were well met. Meals were nutritionally balanced and met individual health and cultural requirements as outlined in people's care plans. Alternatives were offered where required, and drinks and snacks were offered to people throughout the day.

Risk assessments for people were up to date and included guidance for staff on how they should manage any identified risk. People also had detailed care plans which outlined the care that people required. These included information for staff about how people preferred their care and support to be provided. Staff members recorded the care and support that was provided to people on a daily basis.

The home provided a range of individual and group activities for people to participate in throughout the week. Staff members engaged people supportively to participate in activities. People's cultural and religious needs were supported, both within the home and through regular visits to places of worship.

People who lived at Sancroft Hall knew how to complain. The records of complaints that we saw showed that these were dealt with quickly and to people’s satisfaction.

People’s care documents showed that their health needs were regularly reviewed. The home liaised with health professionals to ensure that people received the support that they needed.

The home had systems in place to monitor the quality of people’s care and support. Where concerns had been identified we saw that actions had been taken to address these.

The home had a range of policies and procedures which reflected legal requirements and current best practice in care of older people. Staff members were required to sign to show that they had read and understood these.

People who used the service and staff members spoke positively about the management of the home. They spoke highly of the registered manager and the senior staff team.