We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hall Bank Mews on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Hall Bank Mews, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were well cared for by staff who were kind and caring. Staff knew people well and they promoted person-centred care.
People were given choice about the way their care was delivered and staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
Staff were suitably trained and protected people from the risk of harm and abuse. People’s specific health conditions were managed well.
People and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care which meant people received care that was individualised.
There was an inclusive culture within the service and people told us that the registered manager was approachable.
The service met the characteristics of Good in all areas; more information is in the full report
Rating at last inspection:
Good (Report published 18 August 2016)
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the date and the rating of the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.
Hall Bank mews is registered to provide accommodation with personal care needs to nine people who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. There were nine people living at the home on the day of the inspection.
There was a registered manager in post who was present during the inspection. 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.
Relatives felt people were safe and well looked after by staff. Staff were knowledgeable about the different forms and signs of abuse and who to report concerns to. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed and guidelines had been put in place to minimise the risks without restricting people from doing things they wanted to do.
There were enough staff to support people’s health and social needs. The provider had checks in place to ensure that potential new employees were suitable to work with people who lived at the home.
People were given their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored securely and accurate records maintained. Staff monitored people’s health and arranged healthcare appointments as and when required.
Staff sought people’s consent before supporting them. Staff provided people with information in the way they could understand to enable them to make decisions for themselves. Where people were unable to make certain decisions these were made for them by people they knew well to ensure their human rights were protected.
People were supported to plan and prepare meals. People’s nutritional needs were routinely assessed, monitored and reviewed to ensure their nutritional needs were met. People were provided with equipment to enable them to feed themselves independently. Where people required support to eat this was provided in a patient and dignified way.
People were supported by staff who were kind and respectful towards them. Staff promoted people’s dignity and independence. People were encouraged to form and maintain relationships with friends and relatives who were important to them.
People received personalised care and support that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. People were provided with opportunities to do things they enjoyed and to broaden their life and social skills. People were actively encouraged to follow their faith.
People and their relatives had not had cause to complain but were confident that should the need arise their concerns would be dealt with promptly. The provider had a complaints procedure that was available in different formats.
Relatives found the registered manager and staff easy to talk and were impressed with how the home was run. They felt there was a good atmosphere at the home and were always made to feel welcome when they visited.
The registered manager had a clear vision for the service which was shared by staff. There was a positive working culture at the home where staff felt well supported and valued. Staff and management were motivated to provide a good quality service and to enable people to achieve their full potential.
The provider had a range of checks in place to ensure people’s health and wellbeing. They actively encouraged feedback from people, relatives and staff and used the information gathered to make improvements in the service.
People were involved in their care. We saw they attended meetings held to review their care. We saw people's records were updated to reflect their changing needs. Care and support was delivered in a timely manner to meet people's needs. Staff were aware of people's care and health needs for the people whose care we looked at in detail.
We found that people who used the service were in safe, clean, accessible surroundings that promoted their wellbeing. People told us they were happy with the home and their own rooms.
Staff told us they were provided with good training opportunities to keep people safe and to meet their individual needs.
The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that
people received.
We spoke with one person who used the service, four staff, a visitor, the manager and the head of residential services. We observed staff interaction with six people. We looked at the provider's analysis of resident questionnaires which showed satisfaction with the service. We looked at care records in detail for one person, and a few records for other people. We looked at records about staff and the running of the home.
The atmosphere was friendly and lively. Staff interaction was positive. Staff understood the way people communicated and met their needs. Consent was sought and people's views, privacy and dignity was respected.
People had stimulation for personal development. Health and wellbeing was monitored and reviewed in people's best interests with relatives and health professionals.
There were enough staff so that people's needs were met by consistent staff.
People trusted staff who made sure they were safe and reported any potential concerns about people's safety. There were robust systems in place to act upon and learn from safeguarding, incidents, comments and complaints.