Archived: Highfield Care Home

Updated 25 August 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 checked 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 comprehensive inspection was carried out by one inspector on 21 & 25 June 2018 and was unannounced.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the contents of notifications received by the service. Services have to notify us of certain incidents that occur in the service, these are called notifications.

Some people using the service were unable to communicate their views about the care they received. We carried out observations to assess their experiences throughout our inspection. We spoke with six people using the service, one relative, three care staff, the acting manager and the team leader.

We reviewed six care records, two staff personnel files and a sample of records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 25 August 2018

Highfield Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Highfield Care Home is registered to provide support to 40 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of inspection there were 30 people using the service.

In 2017 the service was bought by HC One and registered with the Care Quality Commission as a new provider. Shortly before this visit the registered manager had stopped working for the service and the deputy manager had stepped into their role. After the inspection visit they told us they had been offered the permenant post of registered manager.

Improvements were required to ensure that the service was clean in all areas to prevent the potential spread of infection. The manager and provider had identified improvements required and there were plans in place to make these.

The provider and manager needed to consider the safety of the stairs in the service and carry out a risk assessment. Checks were carried out on other areas of the service to ensure that the environment and equipment remained safe. Where actions were identified, these were signed off as completed.

Improvements were required to the provision of activities to ensure people felt engaged and had access to meaningful activity. The provider and manager had identified this shortfall and plans were in place to address this.

We observed that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs during our visit. However, staff and people using the service told us they felt there were not enough staff at night. Further consideration needed to be given to the effectiveness of the staffing level at night and how staff were deployed to ensure people felt supported.

Staff had received appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively. Recruitment procedures were safe.

Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. Systems were in place to identify issues in medicines administration and records demonstrated that these issues were resolved.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS.) 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.

There were appropriate risk assessments in place for people to reduce risks such as malnutrition and falls. People and their relatives told us they felt safe living in the service and that staff made them feel safe.

People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration. The support people needed to reduce the risk of malnutrition and dehydration were set out in their care plans. People told us the food was good quality and they had a choice of meals.

People told us staff were kind to them and respected their right to privacy and that staff supported them remain independent. Our observations supported this.

Records demonstrated that people and their relatives were encouraged to feed back on the service in a number of different ways. The views people expressed were acted on and changes made. People told us they felt listened to and involved in how the service was run. People told us they knew how to complain and felt they would be listened to.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. Improvements were planned to further personalise care plans and implement life histories for people. People and their relatives were actively involved in the planning of their care.

The manager created a culture of openness and transparency within the service. People made positive comments about the approachability of the manager. Staff told us that the manager was visible and led by example. Our observations supported this.

There was an adequate quality assurance process in place capable of identifying shortfalls. There was an improvement plan in place and plans were already in place to address shortfalls we identified.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.