Archived: The Hall Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were systems and processes in place, in line with guidance, to protect residents from COVID-19. Residents and staff had been risk assessed and shielding arrangements put in place as necessary.

The home had sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control (IPC) and the donning and doffing of PPE. We observed staff to be wearing PPE appropriately.

All staff and residents were being COVID-19 tested in line with current guidance and had received their first vaccination. Appropriate processes were in place should anyone display any symptoms. However, we were informed that there had been no cases of COVID-19 of either residents or staff since the onset of the pandemic.

The layout of the service and communal areas support social distancing. The premises looked clean and hygienic throughout. There were enhanced cleaning schedules in place and adequate ventilation.

Staff supported the residents’ social and emotional wellbeing, which included maintaining contact with relatives and friends via telephone or virtual media. They had recently developed an area to allow physical visits to take place, via the use of a perspex screen and intercom system.

The Hall is a residential care home providing personal care to 47 people aged 65 and over who may be living with dementia in one adapted building. At the time of this inspection 39 people were living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they were happy and felt staff had a good understanding of their care and support needs. Support was delivered in safe way by a consistent team of staff who had the skills, knowledge and relevant training to support people. Management encouraged staff to continuously develop their skills.

Medicine support was delivered in a safe way. Safeguarding concerns had been referred to the local authority when required. Risks to people were considered and any accidents and incidents were monitored and recorded.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted. Staff understood the importance of social interaction and this was encouraged. People had opportunities to take part in stimulating and enjoyable activities. Consideration was given to people’s specific interests and how participation within the local community could be encouraged.

Staff spent time getting to know people and their life histories. They understood the importance of this which stimulated meaningful conversations and activities. Care plans contained some person-centred, information. However, plans were in place for more information to be added to make sure they were completely person-centred.

Staff communicated with relevant professionals to ensure people received the healthcare support they required. People were provided with a variety of meals which they told us they enjoyed.

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. People were involved in decisions and their choices were respected. Information was presented in a way people could understand. Deprivation of liberty renewals had not always been submitted in a timely manner. This was addressed during the inspection.

People and staff spoke positively of the management team. The service was well-run by a registered manager who was passionate about ensuring people received the support they required and engaged with the community. Regular feedback on the service provided was requested from people and relatives.

Electronic systems meant the provider could regularly monitor the service provided. However some records could be developed further to drive improvements.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was good (report published 26 April 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection in October 2014, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection, we found the service remained ‘Good’.

People told us they felt safe and were well cared for. The registered provider followed robust recruitment checks, to employ suitable staff, and there continued to be sufficient staff employed to assist people in a timely way. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff had continued to receive appropriate training to give them the knowledge and skills they required to carry out their roles. This included training on the administration of medicines and on how to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff received regular supervision to support them to fulfil their roles effectively, and had yearly appraisals to monitor their work performance.

People were supported to have 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 said they enjoyed good food. People's health needs were identified and staff worked with other professionals, to ensure these needs were met.

Staff were kind, caring, compassionate and patient. They respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. Health and social care professionals spoke positively about the quality of care provided.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual care needs and care plans were person-centred and detailed. There was a range of social activities offered including meals to celebrate special events and festive holidays. Spiritual needs were met through in-house services and one-to-one pastoral care when requested.

People told us the service was well managed and organised. The registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of care provided to people. People and staff were asked for their views and their suggestions were used to continuously improve the service.

The service met all relevant fundamental standards we inspect against.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We found that the service was now involving people and their families in their own planning as well as other parts of the service. We looked at revised care planning documentation and found this to be very person centred and personalised to the individual. We observed the support given was of a high standard and people told us they were happy living in the home. One person told us 'Everything I need is here'. Another told us 'The quality of care is great'.

We looked at the environment within the home and found this to be well maintained and very well appointed. We looked at the newer areas of the home and found these had been installed to a very high standard.

We saw that staff recruitment checks were thorough and complete. Staffing levels were appropriate and were monitored closely. We looked at the audit systems to assess the quality of care given and the ways in which feedback was gathered and found this to be robust and inclusive.

One person who used the service told us 'I really like it here. The food is good, the view is good and the staff are good'. Another person told us 'They respect me and listen to me. I don't think there is anything I would improve'. A relative told us 'I am happy with the care and I have no worries about them being here'.

The care plan files we looked at were detailed and accurate and were up to date. The care we observed was person centred and adapted to suit individual people's needs.

Staff were well trained, including around safeguarding vulnerable adults and the people said they felt safe at all times. Staff understood what they needed to do if they suspected any abuse. We looked at the amount of staff working in the home and found it to be appropriate and we looked at training and supervision of staff and found this to be robust and supportive.

The complaints system being used in the home was appropriate, and staff made good efforts to ensure people had a chance to give their opinion or raise any concerns.