Archived: Highfield House

Updated 20 September 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 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.

This inspection took place on the 31 August 2017 and was unannounced. It was conducted by one adult social care inspector.

We reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.

We did not ask for a provider information return (PIR) because we arranged this inspection at short notice. We used information from whistle blowers and other anonymous people who had shared their experience with us and inspected the relevant parts of the safe and well-led domains.

During the inspection we spoke with two members of staff, the registered manager and area manager. We looked at a range of records including staff rotas, meetings with staff and audits to help maintain and improve the service.

Updated 20 September 2017

Highfield House is a large detached house situated close to the centre of Heywood. The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 25 people. On the day of the inspection there were 22 people accommodated at the home.

The service were last inspected in June 2015 when the service did not meet all the regulations and were given two requirement actions for dignity and respect due to the loss of laundry and people wearing clothes that did not belong to them and for people’s care plans not being person centred. The service sent us an action plan to show us how they intended to meet the regulations. At this inspection we saw the improvements had been made and the regulations were met. This unannounced inspection took place on the 24 and 25 January 2017.

The service 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff we spoke with were aware of how to protect vulnerable people and had safeguarding policies and procedures to guide them, which included the contact details of the local authority to report concerns to.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults. There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff.

The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow. Their competency was checked regularly.

The home was clean and tidy. The environment was maintained at a good level and homely in character. We saw there was a maintenance person to repair any faulty items of equipment.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities to help protect their health and welfare.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

People were given choices in the food they ate and told us food was good. People were encouraged to eat and drink to ensure they were hydrated and well fed.

Most staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People told us staff were kind and caring.

We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed. Plans of care contained people’s personal preferences so they could be treated as individuals.

People were given the information on how to complain with the details of other organisations if they wished to go outside of the service.

Staff and people who used the service all told us managers were approachable and supportive.

Regular meetings with staff gave them the opportunity to be involved in the running of the home and discuss their training needs.

The registered manager and area manager conducted sufficient audits to ensure the quality of the service provided was maintained or improved.

There were sufficient activities to provide people with stimulation if they wished to join in.

The service asked people who used the service, family members and professionals for their views and responded to them to help improve the service.