Archived: Hammerwich Hall Care Home

Updated 27 April 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is 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.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 15 March 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Whilst planning the inspection we looked at the information we held about the service and the information contained within the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is an opportunity for the provider to give us some key information about the service, what they do well and their plans for the future. We also looked at the information we held about the service and the provider, including notifications the provider is required to send us by law about significant events at the home. We reviewed this information when we planned the inspection.

We spoke with eight people who used the service, four relatives, three members of the care staff, a team leader and the registered manager. We spent time observing care in the communal areas of the home to see how staff interacted and supported people who used the service.

We also looked at the care plans for three people to see if they accurately reflected the care people received and information related to the management of the home including recruitment files.

Updated 27 April 2017

Hammerwich Hall provides accommodation and residential care for up to 39 people. There were 31 people living in the home at the time of our inspection.

At the last inspection on 9 April 2015 , the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People’s care was planned to meet their needs. Potential risks were identified and management

plans were in place to guide staff on the best way to reduce the risks. Staff understood their role in protecting people from harm and poor care. People were supported by a sufficient number of staff. The provider followed recruitment processes to ensure staff were suitable to work within a caring environment. People received their medicines because there were arrangements in place for safe storage, administration and stock control.

Staff had access to training and support to improve their knowledge of care and enhance their skills. People were provided with a choice of nutritious food and plentiful drinks. Staff supported people to retain their independence and when support was required it was provided in a kind and reassuring manner which protected people’s dignity.

Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People received the care they preferred because staff asked them and their relatives about their likes and dislikes. People and their relatives were able to regularly review their care to ensure it was still appropriate for them. People enjoyed a varied programme of entertainment and support with their hobbies to prevent them from becoming socially isolated. People and relatives felt empowered to discuss any concerns or complaints with staff and the registered manager.

People, visitors and staff found the registered manager approachable and keen to listen to the views of others. People were given opportunities to comment on the care they received and be involved with plans for the future. There were audits in place to monitor the quality of the service to drive improvements in care.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.