You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The inspection took place on 19 October 2017 and was unannounced. The Hawthorns is a care home that provides personal care and accommodation for up to 22 older people. There were 20 people living at the home at the time of our inspection visit. There was a registered manager in place, who was present throughout the visit. 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.

At our last inspection in June 2016, we rated this service ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. We had also identified a breach of the regulations because systems had not always been effective to drive the quality and safety of the service. Following the last inspection, the provider told us how they would improve the service. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made to meet all legal requirements and support a rating of ‘Good’ overall.

People were safe using the service. Staff were aware of how to identify and report any safeguarding concerns and how to help manage people’s risks. People were supported by sufficient levels of staff who had been suitably recruited.

People received safe and appropriate support with their medicines. Systems were in place to promote consistently safe medicine management practices.

People were supported by staff who understood their needs. Staff received training and support for their roles. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People were supported to have enough food and drink of their choice and preference. People had access to healthcare support as needed to promote their health and wellbeing.

All people and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People were treated with respect. We observed good, caring interactions from staff and saw people and staff spent time together. People were supported to express their views and make decisions about their care.

People received care that met their needs and wishes. People were encouraged to engage in activities of interest to them. People and relatives felt able to express their views and complain if necessary, although no formal complaints had been raised.

There was a registered manager in place who understood their responsibilities to the Commission. Systems were in place to involve people and relatives in their care and in monitoring the quality of the service. People and relatives consistently expressed satisfaction with their care and staff told us they felt supported in their roles.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was safe.

People were kept safe by staff who knew how to identify and report any safeguarding concerns. People’s risks were managed by staff who were aware of their needs and abilities.

There were enough staff to support people appropriately. Recruitment processes had been followed as planned.

People were supported to take their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who understood their needs. Staff received training and support for their roles.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives/. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and systems in place supported this practice.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink of their choice and preference. People were supported to access healthcare services to help them remain well.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was caring.

All people and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People were treated with respect.

People were supported to express their views and make decisions about their care. People had the privacy they needed.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs and preferences were understood and met wherever possible. People described a positive experience of living at the home and were encouraged to engage in activities and routines of interest to them.

People and relatives felt able to express their views and complain if necessary.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager in place who understood their responsibilities to the Commission.

People and relatives consistently expressed satisfaction in the leadership of the service. Systems were in place to ensure people and relatives were involved in their care and in monitoring the quality of the service.