Archived: Heartwood Grange

Is the service safe?

People told us that staff provided the care and support they needed to keep them safe. This included support with personal care and to use community amenities to pursue their interests. Throughout our visit we saw staff treated people with respect. Staff helped people with their daily living skills and to do things that promoted their independence.

Staff we spoke with showed a good understanding of each person's needs and how they wished to be supported. Care plans and risk assessments were personalised and provided staff with the guidance to help keep people safe.

Staff were trained to look after vulnerable people and how to protect them for any harm or abuse. Systems were in place to help ensure people were supported to look after their own money.

People told us they felt safe and secure because they were cared for in an environment that had been maintained. All areas of the service were accessible. There was a choice of communal lounges, dining area and a conservatory. All the communal areas were furnished to a good standard, which made it homely and comfortable. All the bedrooms had an en-suite shower, toilet and washbasin, which promoted people's privacy, dignity and safety. Bedrooms were decorated to a good standard and people had personalised their room to reflect their interests.

We, the Care Quality Commission, monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities with regards to promoting people's human rights and their liberty. This meant that people could be confident that their best interests would be represented and that their wellbeing would be met reliably.

The staff at Heartwood Grange had been recruited properly. Checks had been carried out on their background to help ensure they were fit and safe to work with people who used the service.

Is the service caring?

People told us that staff were 'caring' and helped to maintain their dignity when providing care and support. One person described how staff helped them and said 'I really like it here. I like the staff because they know how to help me.'

People told us they were involved to make decisions about their care needs, lifestyle and aspirations. People told us that staff helped them to keep in contact with their family, which helped to promote their wellbeing. One person told us they were supported to attend health appointments with the doctor, specialist nurse and the optician.

Throughout our visit we saw staff were caring and treated people with respect. Staff had a good understanding people's needs, preferences and interests. Staff encouraged people to be involved in daily living tasks to help promote their independence.

People were given information about the advocacy service when they moved to the home. Information was produced in a format so that it was suitable for the person to understand, which included the use of pictures and photographs. This meant that people could access additional support and advice when required.

Is the service effective?

People were supported with their daily care needs. People told us that staff helps them to maintain their independence; take part in meaningful activities and to use other community amenities.

We found people's care needs were met safely. People's care needs and measures to manage risks were regularly reviewed to help ensure any new needs could be met and risks managed. Records showed people's health needs were met and they had regular health checks. Staff monitored people's wellbeing and were aware of the actions to take if a person become unwell.

Staff underwent a recruitment process to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable people and were qualified for the job role. The provider had taken steps to ensure staff were trained and their knowledge and practices were up to date. The provider's policies and procedures were kept up to date and were accessible to staff at all times.

Is this service responsive?

People had the opportunity to visit the home to make sure it was the right place for them and that their needs would be met. People's needs had been assessed before they moved to the home. Staff had been trained to safely meet people's care needs and the action they should take if the person became unwell. Records confirmed people's preferences, decisions made and expectations had been recorded, and the care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

We talked to one person about their life since they moved to the home and the things that liked about the home. Their comments confirmed that their experience of living at Heartwood Grange had had a positive impact on them.

Staff were trained to support people safely and were aware of the signs that would indicate someone may be unhappy or had a concern. It was clear from our observations that staff understood their responsibility and how to protect people from any unforeseeable harm or risks.

Is this service well led?

People who used the service and their relatives were supported to make comments and share their views about the service. The complaints policy and procedure was used effectively for the benefit of people living at the home. When we asked what they would do if they were unhappy, they said, 'I would talk to ..... [manager].'

People's personal care records and other records kept in the home were accurate and up to date. People knew what information was kept in their care records because the content had been discussed with them. Information was also produced in a format that people could understand. People's care needs were reviewed regularly to make sure any new needs could be met reliably. Records showed the home's staff worked with other agencies and services to help ensure people received their care and support that was co-ordinated and managed.

The provider and manager carried out regular checks to help ensure people's health, safety and wellbeing was protected. Staff were trained to look after people safely and were supported to carry out their job role.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of service provided. Information from incidents and accidents had been analysed and used to identify changes and improvements, and minimise the risk of them happening again. The manager took prompt action to improve the quality of service provided, put right any shortfalls that were found and act on concerns raised.