Hartfield House Rest Home provides accommodation for up to 20 older people. There were 16 people living at the home at the time of the inspection. People required a range of care and support. There were some people who lived independent lives but required support for example with personal care and moving and walking safely. People were able to stay at the home for short periods of time on respite care or can choose to live at the home permanently. Staff provided end of life care with support from the community health care professionals but usually cared for people who needed prompting and minimal personal care support.There was no registered manager at the home. They had left just prior to the inspection. A new manager was in post and had commenced the registration process with CQC. 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.
This was an unannounced inspection and took place on 9 and 11 May 2017. This was the first inspection at Hartfield House since the new provider had taken over.
People were supported by staff who were caring and compassionate. They knew people really well and understood their individual needs and choices. They knew people as individuals and were committed to ensuring people received good quality care and support.
There were a range of risk assessments in place to help people stay safe and to retain their independence. Although, not all risks for people with complex health needs had been identified these were managed safely because staff understood people’s needs..
The provider had identified areas that needed to be developed however time was needed to allow these to be fully developed and embedded into practice. People’s records did not always reflect what they had done each day.
People’s medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely by staff who had received appropriate training. Some people had been prescribed ‘as required’ medicines. Information about why and when these should be given were not always in place. However, staff had a good understanding of people and their medicines.
Staff had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse. They knew what actions to take if they believed people were at risk of harm or abuse.
There were enough staff to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. There was a safe recruitment system to ensure staff employed were suitable to work at the home.
There was a training and supervision programme in place. This ensured staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they were well supported.
Mealtimes were a sociable occasion. People were given choice about what they wanted to eat and drink and received food that they enjoyed. Nutritional assessments were in place to ensure people’s needs were met.
The manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff sought people’s consent before offering any support.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to external healthcare professionals such as their GP when they needed it.
People’s care was personalised and reflected their needs and wishes. Care records showed assessments had taken place and people were involved in the drawing up of their care plan. They were able to make individual and everyday choices and staff supported them to do this. The opportunity for social activity was available should people wish to participate.
People had access to the complaints procedure and complaints were handled appropriately.
There was an open and positive culture at the home. People were happy living there and all staff were committed to improving the lives of people who lived there.