Archived: Tang Hall Residential Home

Tang Hall provides residential care for up to 20 people. Some people who live in the home may have an acquired brain injury, mental health needs or dementia. There were nineteen people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

When we last visited the service it was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The service has a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 were safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. There were appropriate arrangements in place for medication to be stored and administered safely, and there were sufficient numbers of care staff with the correct skills and knowledge to safely meet people’s needs.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that decisions were taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLs and associated codes of practice.

People had access to healthcare professionals. A choice of food and drink was available that reflected their nutritional needs, and took into account their personal lifestyle preferences and health care needs.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who knew them well and listened to their views and preferences.

People were encouraged to follow their interests and hobbies. They were supported to keep in contact with their family and friends.

There was a strong management team who encouraged an open culture and who led by example. Staff morale was high and they felt that their views were valued.

The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

For a more comprehensive report regarding this service, please refer to the report of our last visit which was published on 24 August 2015.

We saw that people received care in ways that met their individual needs. There were processes in place to ensure that care was delivered safely.

Staff listened to people and treated them with respect. It was evident that staff knew people well and understood their individual needs. People received care and support that was person-centred and caring.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and provide support promptly when people needed assistance. Staff received support and training to make sure they had the skills and knowledge to care for people safely.

The provider had processes in place to seek the opinions of people who used the service. The manager and senior staff carried out checks to monitor quality and safety in the home.

The people we spoke with told us that they were consulted about the care and support they were provided with and the staff listened and acted on what they said. One person, while laughing and pointing at a staff member, said, "I don't have any trouble with that lot." Another person said, "Home would be better, but it's OK here.'

We saw that staff received training essential for caring for the range of people who used the service, and when talking to them we found that they were knowledgeable about safeguarding adults. People told us that they felt safe living in the service.

People told us that they believed that the staff would only act in their best interests and everyone we spoke with told us that they had not needed to make a complaint.