Archived: Hatton Grange

Hatton Grange is situated in the Hyde area of Tameside and has good access to local transport routes. The establishment is a large purpose-built service, which provides 24 hour care and support for up to 70 people who require residential care without nursing. The property has three floors with a residential care unit and a dementia care unit on each floor. The ground floor units are named Millwood, the first floor units are Kingston and the second floor units are Carrfield. All bedrooms are for single accommodation and have en-suite shower facilities. At the time of our inspection there were 67 people using the service.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and there was a registered manager at this service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

We have made some recommendations in this report in relation to staffing levels, maintenance and the environment. Although the registered provider took action to improve these areas following the inspection, they should have been recognised and prompt action taken using the service's own quality assurance process. This is a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Recruitment was on-going to ensure enough staff were employed to meet the needs of people who used the service. Until the service was fully staffed the service was using agency staff. The same staff were booked to aid the continuity of care for people using the service, however the agency staff were not always reliable at turning up. The staff team worked well together to ensure the needs of people were not affected by any dips in staffing levels and there was a good atmosphere in the service. However, staff told us they felt stressed and tired with trying to manage without enough staff on duty. People had access to a range of social activities and events within the service, but activities during the afternoon were sometimes compromised when there was a shortage of care staff to carry them out. We received written confirmation from the district manager that the registered provider had agreed to increase the staffing levels within the service shortly after our inspection. We have made a recommendation in the report about this.

Health and safety checks were carried out by maintenance staff and maintenance certificates were in place. However, there were a number of actions outstanding on the electrical wiring certificate and the fire risk assessment, which were dated August 2016 and March 2016 respectively. We received written assurances from the district manager and registered manager following our inspection that all these repairs and action points had been completed. We have made a recommendation in the report about this.

The registered provider had an induction and training programme in place and staff were receiving regular supervision. People were confident in the staff skills and knowledge and said they received good care and support. However, staff had not received training on management of distressed or agitated behaviours which they felt would be of benefit to them in meeting the needs of current people using the service. We have made a recommendation in the report about this.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home. We found that staff had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes.

Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage, administration and recording were robust.

We saw that appropriate support with eating and drinking was provided to people who used the service and we saw that people received good quality meals and plentiful drinks throughout the day.

People were included in decisions about their care and we saw that appropriate care and support was being offered to people who used the service. We observed a number of positive interactions between the staff and people they were caring for. People received a detailed assessment to determine if the service was right for them. The care plans were person-centred and included input from a range of professionals.

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. There was a formal complaints system in place to manage any complaints received.

The registered manager supported the staff team and ensured that people who used the service were able to make suggestions and raise concerns. We received positive feedback from people and relatives about the care and support offered by the service.

We found that people were asked for consent and the provider acted in accordance with people's wishes. People who use the service received care in a way that met their needs and preferences.

The people we spoke with told us that they had no concerns about the care they received. They told us that if they had any concerns or complaints, they would speak to the senior staff on duty or the registered manager. We found that the provider had processes in place to ensure people who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse.

We found that people were cared for by staff that had been through the appropriate recruitment checks. People's care records contained enough information to show how they were to be supported and cared for.