Archived: The Hyde Care Home

Updated 4 May 2018

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 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.

The inspection took place on the 4 April 2018 was unannounced and the inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who used this type of care service.

Before the inspection we looked at notifications we had received about the service. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive. We also spoke with local commissioners to gather their experiences of the service.

The provider was asked to complete a Provider Information Return prior to our inspection. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We 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.

During our inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service and one relative. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager area quality director, team leader, four care workers, the chef, activity coordinator and one visiting health professional. We reviewed six peoples care files and discussed with them and care workers their accuracy.

We checked five staff files, care records and medication records, management audits, staff and resident meeting records and the complaints log. We walked around the building observing the safety and suitability of the environment and observing staff practice.

Updated 4 May 2018

This inspection took place on the 4 April 2018 and was unannounced. This was the services first inspection since the transfer of the service to a new provider on 15 December 2017. At the time of the inspection the new provider was in the process of changing new systems, including uniforms and new files

The Hyde is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This was the services first inspection since the transfer of the service to a new provider on 15 December 2017. At the time of the inspection the new provider was in the process of changing new systems with regards to records and files.

The Hyde Care Home (known locally as 'The Hyde') is registered to provide residential care without nursing for up to 28 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people in the home. People are supported over four floors, people had access to floors by way of a lift and stair lifts. Some rooms have en suite facilities and can accommodate married couples. The Hyde is set in a rural location in Bridport. Communal facilities include specialist bathrooms, lounges, a dining room, quiet social areas and an accessible garden.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

The registered manager had been in position since October 2017. They were supported by a deputy manager and a staff structure which allowed them to have oversight of the service. We

had discussions with the area quality director, who represented the provider at the inspection following the recent change in registration.

People described the care as safe and were supported by staff who understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the actions needed if abuse was suspected.

There were enough staff to meet people’s care and support needs. Staff had been recruited safely including full employment history and disclosure and barring checks. Induction and on-going training provided staff with the skills needed to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff were supported and had opportunities to meet with senior staff and discuss their role and professional development.

People had their risks assessed and actions were in place to minimise the risk of any avoidable harm. This included risks associated with swallowing, falls, skin damage and malnutrition. Staff were able to explain to us how people’s needs and choices were met and their role in reducing risks people lived with.

People had their medicines ordered, stored, administered and recorded safely. When people self-administered their medicines risk assessments were in place which were regularly reviewed to ensure safety.

People were confident that at the end of their lives they would be cared for with kindness and compassion and their comfort would be maintained. Staff worked with other organisations to make sure high standards of care were provided and people received the support and treatment they wished for at the end of their lives

Staff had completed infection control training and demonstrated practice that reduced the risk of avoidable infections. When things went wrong lessons were learnt and actions put in place to improve safety.

Pre admission assessments were completed and formed care and support plans that were reviewed regularly. Care plans were person centred and 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 supported this practice.

If people needed to make a complaint they were aware of the process and felt the registered manager was a good listener and would put things right. A complaints log was kept and records showed that when complaints had been received they were investigated in a timely way and outcomes shared with the complainant.

Staff were well informed about changes as they happened because there were effective communication processes. A range of meetings with staff, people and their families provided opportunities for engagement and involvement in service development. Quality assurance systems were robust and effective in identifying areas of service delivery that required improvement. Partnerships with other agencies and organisations enabled appropriate sharing of information that in turn provided seamless care for people.

The registered manager was also under a new management structure. They told us, they already felt fully supported by the new provider and senior managers. They said, “I feel very supported by senior managers and my team, we are all learning together”.

The registered manager had notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of all significant events which had occurred in line with their legal responsibilities. Where concerns had been raised with them they had sought advice and shared information with the CQC and the commissioners of the service.