Archived: Hurlfield View

Updated 29 June 2016

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.

The inspection took place on 4 May 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and a pharmacist inspector.

At the time of the visit there were 18 people using the service. We spoke with two people who used the service, but as most people were living with dementia we could not speak to them in a meaningful way. Therefore we spoke with two visitors and spent time observing how staff interacted and gave support to people. We also 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 spoke with a team leader, two care workers, the cook, the registered manager and their line manager, who visited the home during the inspection.

We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service and staff, as well as the management of the service. This included reviewing six people’s care records, staff rotas, the training matrix, four staff recruitment and support files, medication records, audits, policies and procedures.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the home including notifications that had been sent to us from the home. On this occasion we did not ask the provider to send us 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.

Updated 29 June 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 4 May 2016. The home was previously inspected in December 2014 when we found two breaches of regulations. These were regarding the safe management of medicines and gaining people’s consent to care and treatment. Following that inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to these breaches. This inspection was undertaken to check that they had followed their plan, and to confirm that they now met all of the legal requirements.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for 'Hurlfield View' on our website at www.cqc.org.uk'

Hurlfield View (resource centre) is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people living with dementia. The centre provides periods of respite care and works with local community teams where additional assessment and support is required. Four of the 20 beds are allocated to people who are referred to the service by the dementia rapid response team.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider had addressed both breaches found at the last inspection.

People who used the service, and the visitors we spoke with, told us they were happy with how care and support was provided at the home. They spoke positively about the staff and the way the home was managed. A relative told us, “They [staff] have been marvellous.” We observed staff supporting people in a caring, responsive and friendly manner. They encouraged people to be as independent as possible while taking into consideration any risks associated with their care.

People told us they felt safe living and working at the home. We saw there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding people and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made. Assessments identified any potential risks to people and plans were in place to ensure people’s safety.

At our last inspection we identified shortfalls in the way medication was managed. At this inspection we found medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure they were administered safely.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a satisfactory understanding and knowledge of this, and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if a DoLS application was required. However, records lacked comprehensive detail about best interest decisions as to whether or not a DoLS application was required.

There was enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs, but some people felt additional staff would be beneficial at key times, such as in the afternoons and evenings.

There was a recruitment system in place that helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Staff had received a structured induction into how the home operated, and their job role, at the beginning of their employment. They had access to a varied training programme that met the needs of the people using the service.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. The people we spoke with said they were very happy with the meals provided and confirmed they were involved in choosing what they wanted to eat. We saw lunchtime on the day we visited was a relaxed and enjoyable experience for people who used the service.

People’s needs had been assessed before they went to stay at the home and we found they, and their relatives, had been involved in the planning their care. The care files we checked reflected people’s needs and preferences so staff had clear guidance on how to care for them.

People had access to activities which provided regular in-house stimulation, as well as occasional trips out into the community. People told us they enjoyed the activities they took part in.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed. We saw the complaints policy was easily available to people using and visiting the service. The people we spoke with said they had no complaints, but said they would feel comfortable speaking to staff if they had any concerns. When concerns had been raised they had been investigated and resolved in a timely manner.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. However, shortfalls identified by the registered manager in their audits had not been addressed by the provider and they had not ensured actions required were completed in a timely way. However we received information form the provider following our inspection that these were being actioned. This ensured there was oversight and governance by the provider.