Hailey House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs were assessed and monitored, and they were involved in the assessment process. Care plans were in place to ensure their care and support was person centred and effective. People were provided with a balanced diet and food and drinks of their choice. People were able to consent to their care and support as much as possible. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions, these were made in their best interests, in line with legislation and best practice.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives had been involved in their assessments and regular reviews of their needs. A family member said, “Yes all of [relative’s] care has been discussed with me so I know what to expect.” A family member said, “The staff encouraged me to bring in items for [relative’s] room such as photos, so they have their memories around them.”

Staff said they could easily read about people’s needs and choices as care plans were clear, accessible and up to date. A staff member said, “I have read care plans and risk assessments. We can read them and then tell [manager’s name] if they need changing and they will update them. There were clear actions for staff to follow such as in a person’s diabetes plan and another person’s nutrition plan to ensure they were accurate and consistent. Work was in progress to complete everyone’s life story to ensure it was detailed and comprehensive and staff would know people’s history and experiences.

There was a system in place to ensure assessments looked at people’s needs and wishes. People's care plans were personalised, holistic and based on their strengths and aspirations. People’s care plans included an assessment of need, as well as risk assessments which included using equipment, mobility, pressure care, smoking and eating and drinking.

People were supported to eat a healthy and balanced diet. People were involved in menu planning and choices and one person told us, “I able to choose my meals and if I fancy something that is not on the menu, they will make it for me. There was a variety of food and dishes on offer throughout the week. People could choose to eat with others at the dining table or in their rooms.

Staff knew people’s nutrition and hydration needs, likes and dislikes. Everyone who needed support with eating was assisted by staff who took their time to help people to enjoy their meal. Where needed, people’s food and fluid intake were recorded and their weight monitored.

Processes were in place to assess and record people’s food and drink texture due to any needs associated with choking or aspiration. Where a person wished to have food which went against professionals’ advice, there was an assessment in place identifying those risks and ways to mitigate them. Some information was not consistent all the way through the care plan and could be confusing for staff. The manager informed us shortly after the site visit that all information we identified had been reviewed and corrected to ensure people’s needs were up to date.

People received personal and health care support which was coordinated to meet their needs.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support alongside other professionals.

Professionals were positive about the way the service worked with them. In a recent survey undertaken by the service in August 2024, 3 professionals had responded that the care was good at Hailey House. At the suggestion of a professional, a pulse oximeter and blood pressure apparatus had been purchased for the service and the manager and deputy manager had undertaken training in its use.

Plans for transition, referral, discharge from hospital and admission to the service considered people’s individual needs, circumstances, and ongoing care arrangements. The manager communicated with external professionals and services for a coordinated approach and to maintain continuity of care.

People were supported to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence choice and control. People’s health needs were discussed with them and their family members to ensure they lived healthy lives. A person’s said, “I am very healthy, just my body is getting a bit old.”

Staff were aware of people’s needs and recognised when something was not right. They told us they would always raise concerns with the manager as quickly as possible. A staff member said, “I am always supported by my manager and if I am worried or confused about anything, they are always ready to sort things out.”

Referrals to health care professionals were made in a timely way and results of any intervention were recorded which evidenced good practice and outcomes for people. The manager told us they try to keep up to date with information to support people keep well and comfortable. For example, a nurse advisor provided via the Provide NHS Bladder & Bowel Service (BABS), is scheduled to attend on 27th January 2025 to deliver face-to-face training on continence pad usage and skin care.

People’s outcomes were improving as the provider was addressing people’s level of satisfaction by listening and acting on their views and experiences of the service. A family member told us, “It is a different place now and I cannot believe how [relative’s name] has come out of their shell and is participating in activities, which I never thought possible.”

Effective approaches were being developed to improve people’s outcomes. For example, consulting people about decoration of the house and the use of the garden, more choices of food and drinks, social activities and things to do. The manager shared with us how they had improved outcomes for people such as reducing isolation and getting people involved in creating a service they wanted. The staff team were enthusiastic and committed to improve people’s enjoyment and fulfilment in their lives.

Processes were in place to monitor continuous improvements to people’s care, treatment and support.

People who could consent to their care and support told us their views were respected, and they had choice and control in their lives. One person said, “I can make my own decisions and do what I want here.” Another said, “The staff ask me what I need and always do my care in a way I want it.” A family member said, “I can see how the staff listen to [relative’s] choices and decisions and how hard they try to encourage them to try something different to increase their participation.”

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act which helped ensure they understood the principles of the Act and put the training into practice. Staff told us people have the right to refuse care and the right to refuse their medicines. A staff member gave us an example of someone who had capacity to make her own decisions around their diet which went against professional advice. Where people lacked the mental capacity to consent to care and treatment, the manager worked in partnership with key stakeholders to make decisions in people’s best interests.

People's mental capacity assessments and risk assessments were up to date and detailed to ensure people lived safely and free from unwarranted restrictions. It was clear how people or those who were important to them had been involved in the process. People's care plans demonstrated how staff should empower them to make their own decisions about their care and support. A staff member said, “Firstly, I will respect the decision of the person and if they are refusing care and support, I will try again a little later. I will try to encourage them bit by bit to have their personal care needs met because it is a basic need for their health and wellbeing. Where restrictions were documented, for example, a person’s freedom to leave the service unsupported, it was recorded if people needed a staff member to go with them. People had access to an independent advocate who supported them with decisions. There was a process to make applications to deprive a person of their liberty, called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People assessed as needing a DoLS authorisation had one in place and the manager was aware of when these needed to be reviewed.