Archived: Hatley Court

Updated 1 February 2016

We undertook an unannounced focused inspection of Hatley Court on 2 and 8 December 2015. This inspection was completed to check that the improvements to meet the legal requirements planned by the provider after our comprehensive inspection on 2 and 3 March 2015 had been made. We inspected the service against four of the five questions we ask about services: is the service safe, is the service effective, is the service responsive and is the service well-led. This is because the service was not meeting legal requirements in relation to those questions.

The inspection was undertaken by two inspectors and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we looked at the information that we held about the service including information received and notifications. Notifications are information on important events that happen in the service that the provider is required, by law, to notify us about. We also looked at the provider’s action plan, which the provider had amended and sent to us on 25 October 2015.

During the first day of our inspection we spoke with three people who lived at the home, three members of support staff and an assistant manager. We looked at two people’s care records. On the second day we spoke with the two registered managers.

Updated 1 February 2016

Hatley Court is registered to provide accommodation and non-nursing care for up to 35 people. There were 29 people living at the home when we visited. The home is divided over two floors and small units with several bedrooms sharing their own dining room. There is a large communal lounge area on the ground floor and an activities room which is also shared with the hairdresser.

This unannounced inspection took place on 02 February 2015. The previous inspection was undertaken on 04 September 2013 and we found that the regulations which we assessed were being met.

At the time of the inspection there were two registered managers in place. Only one registered manager was present in the home during the inspection. 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 felt safe and staff knew what actions to take if they thought anyone had been harmed in anyway.

Risks to people’s health and well-being had not always been identified. This meant that staff were not given the information about how those risks should be monitored or where possible reduced. This placed people at risk of receiving care that was inappropriate or unsafe.

People did not always have access to healthcare professionals in a timely manner. This meant that people were put at risk of receiving care that didn’t meet their changing needs.

Not all care plans contained sufficient detail to ensure that staff were clear about how they should support people. This meant that there was a risk that staff, (especially any new or bank staff), would not being fully aware of their responsibilities.

Staff were only employed after a robust recruitment procedure to ensure they were the right person for the job. Staff received training and support from the management team to carry out their role. There were a sufficient number of staff working to meet people’s needs. Staff had time to carry out their tasks and to sit and talk to people. Staff were kind and compassionate when supporting people.

Arrangements to act in accordance with people’s consent were not always in place. Not all staff understood how to put the Mental Capacity Act 2005 into practice. This meant that staff sometimes thought that they were making the right decisions for people to keep them safe but had not followed the correct procedures to assess their capacity to make decisions and respond appropriately in accordance with the findings.

Staff were trained and deemed competent to administer medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed.

People enjoyed the food and always had enough to eat and drink. People were asked what their interests and hobbies were and activities were organised to meet people’s preferences.

There was an effective complaints procedure in place and people knew how to complain and felt confident to do so,

Monthly audits were completed by a manager to identify what improvements needed to be made to the home. The necessary actions were taken as a result of the findings. However, people living in the home and their relatives weren’t always asked for their views on the home or how it could be improved.

Notifications required by law to be made to the commission were not always completed. The managers were not aware of all of their responsibilities to inform the commission of allegations that someone had been harmed. However the allegations had been appropriately investigated and reported to the local safeguarding team.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the (Registration)  Regulations 2009 . You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.