We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hallamshire Residential Home 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 Hallamshire Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The premises were very clean. Staff followed cleaning schedules to ensure all areas of the home were regularly cleaned. Enhanced cleaning was completed of frequently touched surfaces. Suitable cleaning products were used to control the spread of infection.
Staff had received training about how to keep people safe from the risk of infection and how to use personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly. The provider ensured there was enough PPE available for staff at all times. We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE.
Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with government guidance, by both staff and people living in the home.
Appropriate checks were completed before people moved into the home, to reduce the risk of infection being introduced to other people living in the home. The service obtained evidence that any person being admitted to the service had recently tested negative for COVID-19, prior to their arrival.
The home was in the process of fully reopening to visitors following the conclusion of the COVID-19 outbreak at the service. The provider had reopened their screened visiting space which could be accessed by visitors without entering the main building of the home. We signposted the provider to the updated government guidance in respect of visits to care homes, to support them to review their visiting arrangements.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ People were protected against the risk of infection.
¿ The home had robust systems in place to support relatives to visit their family members, minimising the risk of infection. Visits had been facilitated in the outside grounds of the home in designated areas during the summer. The registered manager had segregated an internal lounge with a designated external entrance to facilitate visitors safely during the winter. The only exceptions to these arrangements were visits to people placed on end of life care. Visits took place by prior arrangement and PPE was worn.
¿ The provider had regularly updated policies and procedures to ensure they included changes and best practice guidance in relation to COVID-19. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the updates and were working in line with them.
¿ We observed staff changed PPE, when appropriate, and washed and sanitised their hands. The provider had invested in a fogging machine. This was used to create and disperse a disinfectant aerosol to reduce the numbers of airborne micro-organisms and also to apply disinfectant to surfaces that may be difficult to reach. Staff changing and laundry facilities had been provided to minimise the risk and spread of infection.
¿ Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with guidance, where possible.
¿ The premises were clean. There was a cleaning schedule in place and adequate cleaning hours to ensure it was maintained. Additional cleaning of high use areas had been implemented, including door handles, and hand rails. We identified some areas required attention. For example, shower chairs required further cleaning and the grout between the wall tiles in the main bathroom required a deep clean. The registered manager agreed to address this immediately.
¿ Staff had completed training in infection control, COVID-19 and how to put on and take off their PPE. Staff were frequently briefed about changes in government advice that impacted on their role. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.
¿ Risk assessments were in place to consider and reduce any impact to people who used the service who may be disproportionately at risk of COVID-19 including Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups (BAME), people with learning disabilities and people with dementia. However, there were no formal arrangements in place for staff. The registered manager assured us this would be implemented.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Hallamshire Residential Home is a converted Victorian house situated in the Broomhill area of Sheffield. Communal lounges and dining areas are based on the ground floor, and accommodation is split across the ground and first floor. It provides care and accommodation for up to 32 older people. At the time of our inspection 31 people were using the service, some of whom were living with a dementia.
People’s experience of using this service:
People who used the service and their relatives were positive about the care they received at Hallamshire Residential Home. Their comments included, “Staff make us feel welcome when we visit. They always give us an update on [relatives name]. They tell us if they’re eating well and if they’ve seen the doctor. They always let us know,” and “We would recommend this home. We looked around a few but this was by far the best and we haven’t been disappointed.”
People were safe because there were effective risk assessments in place, and systems to keep people safe from abuse or avoidable harm. Also, medicines were managed safely and people were supported to ensure their health needs were met.
Observations and discussions with relatives and staff indicated there were enough staff on duty. The service used regular agency staff to fill any gaps in the rota to make sure people’s needs were met in a timely manner.
The registered provider had taken prompt and appropriate action to learn lessons when things went wrong. This included procuring external consultants to carry out audits of the home and make suggestions for improvements.
Since the last inspection, refurbishment and redecoration work had been completed which had improved the appearance of the home. The environment was clean, bright and homely.
Staff had undertaken a good range of training, and this was refreshed regularly. Staff also received supervision and an annual appraisal. Staff told us they could speak with the managers at any time and they would listen to them and give advice.
People, and those who were important to them, were at the heart of the service and were encouraged to be involved in decisions and developing their support.
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.
Staff recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. Staff also maintained people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care and support.
We spent time observing staff interacting with people and found they were kind, caring and supported people in a sensitive way. Staff were very patient and gave people time and opportunities to remain independent.
Each person had a care plan. However, not all care plans had been reviewed and updated to reflect the current needs of people who used the service. Information seen in care plans was sometimes conflicting which made it difficult to ensure people’s individual needs and wishes were being maintained.
There was an extensive activity programme available to people, which they all thoroughly enjoyed and participated in.
There was a complaints procedure and we saw a system was in place to log any complaints received. People who used the service knew how to make a complaint.
The registered manager provided staff with leadership and was approachable. Audits and checks continued to be used to drive improvements to the service people received.
People’s feedback was used to make changes to the service, for example, to the menus and activities.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published on 1 November 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Hallamshire Residential Home is based in a converted Victorian house situated in the Broomhill area of Sheffield. Communal lounges and dining areas are based on the ground floor, and accommodation is split across the ground and first floor. It provides care and accommodation for up to 32 older people. At the time of our inspection 29 people were using the service, most of whom were living with a dementia.
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.
People’s medicines were managed safely but we made a recommendation about recording their use. People said they felt safe at the service.
Risks to people using the service were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the risk of them occurring. Risks to people from premises and equipment were also assessed and reviewed. Accidents and incidents were recorded and investigated to see if improvements were needed to keep people safe.
Plans were in place to ensure people received the support they needed in emergency situations. Policies and procedures were in place to help protect people from abuse. Staff had access to a safeguarding policy. The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure they were sufficient to keep people safe. Recruitment procedures minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
Staff said they received all the training they needed to support people effectively. Staff also received additional, specialist training if a person using the service had a particular support need. Staff were supported through regular supervisions and appraisals.
The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff had a good working knowledge of it. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People and their relatives spoke positively about the food at the service.
People were supported to access external professionals to maintain and improve their health. Care plans contained records of visits from GPs, district nurses, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and other professionals.
People and their relatives spoke positively about the care they received, describing it as kind and caring. Throughout the inspection we saw numerous examples of kind and friendly interactions between people and staff, with staff acting professionally at all times.
Staff clearly knew people very well and were able to talk with them about their relatives, their lives and other things they enjoyed. We saw numerous examples of staff talking with people about what their relatives were up to, which people clearly enjoyed. As we were moving around the building staff took time to introduce us to people and tell us what was important to them.
People told us they had the freedom to make their own choices about the care and support they received. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.
At the time of our inspection no one was using an advocate or receiving end of life care. Procedures were in place to support people to access these if needed.
People received person-centred care. Care plans were on a monthly basis to ensure they reflected people’s current support needs and preferences.
People were supported to access activities they enjoyed. The service placed a strong emphasis on providing personalised activities. People and their relatives spoke very positively about the activities on offer at the service. Procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints.
Staff spoke positively about the culture and values of the service. Staff said the registered manager was supportive and included them in the running of the service. People and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager.
Feedback was sought from people and their relatives in meetings, using a feedback computer in the reception area and through an annual questionnaire. Any issues raised in feedback were acted on.
The registered manager and registered provider carried out quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service. The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken.
Some people remembered sharing their life story with staff. One person said, 'I remember my family asking me and writing what I used to do and where I worked. I think they gave it to the manager.'
Care was planned and managed by staff with the help of people and their families. People said they were included in care reviews. They said they were informed of the reason for any changes to their care. One person said they had become unsteady on their feet and they had been asked to use a frame to give them support. Dedicated members of staff were seen carrying out cleaning duties throughout the home during our inspection. The communal areas, the bathrooms and some of the bedrooms we saw were clean and smelt fresh.
Staff received appropriate professional development, so that people who used the service received care, treatment and support from staff that were competent to carry out their roles. Staff said they received 'a lot' of training and updates.
People who used the service and their representatives were asked for their views about the care and treatment and they were acted on by the provider. We saw minutes of resident's meetings. These happened every month. There was a newsletter for people to find out what happens at the home.
One person said, 'I can't tell you for sure whether I was involved in the planning of my care, but I know my family is involved.' Another person said, 'I can go to bed and get up when I want. I would rather be at home but that is no reflection on this home or the staff.' The others looked contented, friendly and freely moved around the home.
Before people received any care or treatment they had been asked for their consent. The information we gathered on the day confirmed that the provider had acted in accordance with individual's wishes. Staff had a good understanding of people's capacity and their preferences.
We gained the views of health professionals who visited the service on the day. They said staff were always receptive to suggestions and people received good care at the home.
There was an effective recruitment process in place. Staff described the process they followed when they were recruited to work at the home. They said they liked the work and the team they worked with. One staff member said, 'I love the residents. I find out what type of life they led before they came in and what they enjoy doing. It helps us when we chat to them and understand them better.'
We spoke with two relatives during our inspection who told us they had not been involved in the development of their relatives care plan, but this had been their choice. However, they also told us they were able to make changes and contribute to their relative's care if they wished. They also told us their relative's dignity was respected and confidentiality was always maintained.
People who used the service told us they were happy living at the home and they were well looked after. One person told us 'I enjoy living here'. Another person told us 'It is quite alright'. Staff were described as good, helpful and nice.
One relative we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and their family member was well looked after.
We spoke with two relatives who confirmed they would talk to the manager if they had any concerns. One relative told us 'My relative feels safe here'. People told us that they felt safe at the home and they would tell staff or the manager if they were worried about anything.