OSJCT Hartsholme House

Updated 10 July 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.

This inspection took place on 10 May 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

Before the inspection we reviewed information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send to 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 reviewed other information we held about the home including notifications they had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted the local authority commissioners of adult social care services and Healthwatch and asked them for their views of the service provided. Healthwatch is the local consumer champion for people using adult social care services.

During the inspection we spoke with three people using the service and six relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, the head of care, three care staff, a cook, and the head housekeeper.

We observed staff providing support to people in the communal areas of the service. This was so we could understand people's experiences. By observing the care received, we could determine whether or not people were comfortable with the support they were provided with.

We reviewed a range of records about people's care and how the service was managed. This included looking at all or part of four people's care records and associated documents. We reviewed records of meetings, recruitment checks carried out for four staff, staff rotas, staff training records and maintenance and safety logs. We also reviewed the quality assurance audits the management team had completed.

Updated 10 July 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection on 10 May 2018.

OSJCT Hartsholme House 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.

OSJCT Hartsholme House provides accommodation for up to 44 older people with care needs and people living with dementia. It is situated on the outskirts of Lincoln and provides accommodation over two floors. On the day of our inspection there were 43 people living at the home.

At our last inspection in November 2015 we rated the service good with a rating of outstanding for responsive and good for safe, effective, caring and well led. At this inspection we rated the service as outstanding overall. We found responsive and well led to be outstanding and safe, effective and caring to remain as good.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Staff understood their responsibility to protect people from the risk of abuse and appropriate action was taken in response to any incidents. Staff were aware of risks to people’s health and safety and took action to reduce the risks, whilst not restricting them unnecessarily and maintaining their independence. Incidents and accidents were analysed and used to identify themes and share learning.

Staffing levels were adequate to enable people’s needs to be met promptly and staff were deployed effectively. Staff were recruited safely and received regular and appropriate training for their roles. People received their medicines when they needed them and medicines were stored and recorded appropriately.

The service managed the prevention and control of infection well. Staff understood their role and responsibilities for maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in the premises. The required checks of the premises and environment were made to maintain a safe environment.

People had enough to eat and drink and staff provided them with support when required. Mealtimes were relaxed and sociable and people were complimentary about the quality, variety and amounts of food provided. People health needs were managed well and staff worked with health professionals to ensure all concerns were managed in a co-ordinated and timely way.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Documentation of mental capacity assessments and decision making in people’s best interests was not always fully completed, however this was being addressed by the registered manager.

People received care from a group of staff who were caring and kind. They encouraged people and worked with them to ensure they achieved the best level of independence they could. Staff treated people in a respectful and inclusive manner and their opinions and views on their care were recognised and acted upon.

Staff provided care in a truly patient centred way and staff had an excellent and in-depth knowledge of the people they cared for. People and their relatives told us staff had an excellent knowledge and understanding of peoples’ diverse needs, characteristics and social background that might influence how they wanted to receive support and how they might want to spend their time. The registered manager worked with external agencies to introduce initiatives to further improve people’s experience and well being.

People and their relatives were fully involved in the development and review of their care plans so they felt consulted, empowered, listened to and valued. Care and support plans were reviewed and changed as people’s needs changed. Staff had extended the life story work they undertook with people, spending time with them over a significant period to further develop the information they had about each person.

People were encouraged to stay socially active and to maintain their relationships with family, friends and their contacts in the local community. Family involvement was actively promoted and relatives spoke about the value of this in creating positive memories for them and their family member. Activities were tailored to people’s interests and experiences and a wide range of social activities were provided for people and their families.

Staff benefited from clear and strong leadership and the management team led by example. There was an extremely positive culture that was person centred, open and empowering which achieved good outcomes for people and improved their well-being.

Staff were motivated by and proud of the service and there was a sense of shared purpose. There were consistently high levels of constructive engagement with people, staff and the local community. People were involved in decision making and actively encouraged to share their views.

The management team monitored the quality of the service and performance was effectively managed. There was evidence of a consistent approach to continuous improvement and introduction of innovations to benefit people using the service.