We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 18 January 2016.
Haywood Oaks Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living permanently at the service and two people receiving short term care.
Haywood Oaks Care Home is required to have 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. At the time of the inspection a manager was in post who had submitted their registered manager’s application to CQC and this was being processed.
At our last inspection of the service in June 2015 we identified the provider was in breach of four Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had not assessed the risks to the health and safety of people receiving care and treatment. This included the proper and safe management of medicines and assessing the risk, prevention and control of infection control. People’s nutritional needs had not been appropriately assessed and planned for. There were not effective systems to assess monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. The provider had failed to notify CQC of all reportable incidents.
After the inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us of the action they would take to make the required improvements. At this inspection we found the provider had made significant improvements to protect people’s safety and wellbeing. The breaches in regulation had been met.
Improvements had been made with the cleanliness and hygiene of the service and infection control measures were in place.
At the time of this inspection people told us that they felt staff provided a safe service and risks were managed appropriately. Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedures and had received appropriate training. Improvements had been made to the management of medicines; people received their medicines as prescribed. Safe recruitment practices meant as far as possible only people suitable to work for the service were employed.
The manager had processes in place to apply the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Accidents and incidents were recorded and appropriate action had been taken to reduce further risks. Risk plans had improved; they were detailed and regularly monitored and reviewed. Improvements had been made to the internal environment, including the replacement of some equipment available for people.
There were sufficient numbers of staff available that were suitably qualified and experienced. Staff were deployed appropriately to meet people’s individual needs. Staff responded to people’s needs in a timely manner and spent quality time with people. People’s dependency needs were reviewed on a regular basis and staffing levels amended to meet people’s needs.
People said that they received sufficient to eat and drink. They were positive about the choice, quality and quantity of food and drinks available. People received appropriate support to eat and drink and independence was promoted.
Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs. People’s healthcare needs had been assessed and were regularly monitored. Additionally, people were supported to access healthcare services to maintain their health and well-being.
The support and training opportunities for staff had improved. Staff received an induction and ongoing training. Staff were appropriately supported, this consisted of formal and informal meetings to discuss and review their learning and development needs.
People we spoke with were positive about the care and approach of staff. They described them as caring, compassionate and knowledgeable about their needs. People’s preferences, routines and what was important to them had been assessed and recorded. Support to enable people to pursue their interests and hobbies was limited. This was an area identified by people who used the service that required further improvements.
Whilst people had been involved in discussions and decisions about their care and support they received, care records did always show this involvement.
People told us they knew how to make a complaint and information was available for people with this information, including information about independent advocacy information. Confidentiality was maintained and there were no restrictions on visitors.
The provider had improved the checks in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service. People and their relatives and representatives, received opportunities to give feedback about their experience of the service.