We carried out a review of the data available to us about Iris Hayter House 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 Iris Hayter House, you can give feedback on this service.
Iris Hayter House accommodates up to 13 people with mental health needs in one purpose-built building.
On the day of our inspection 12 were living in the home.
Why we inspected
At the last inspection the rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 October 2019). We found medicines were not safely managed (Regulation 12 Health and Social Care Act 2008 [Regulated activities] Regulations 2014) and monitoring systems had not identified our concerns (Regulation 17 Health and Social Care Act 2008 [Regulated activities] Regulations 2014).
We undertook this focused inspection to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements.
We also looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider now met the legal requirements.
People's experience of using this service
Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicine as required. Records were accurate and safe recording procedures for bottled medicines were followed.
The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Regular audits were conducted which helped to improve the quality of the service.
People received safe care from skilled and knowledgeable staff. People told us they felt safe receiving care from the service. Staff fully understood their responsibilities to identify and report any concerns. The provider had safe recruitment and selection processes in place. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs.
Risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. The service promoted positive risk taking, enabling people to remain independent.
Staff culture was positive, and the team was caring. This had resulted in the provision of compassionate and personalised care. The service had a clear management and staffing structure in place. Staff worked well asa team and had a sense of pride working at the service. Staff had been well trained and followed robust PPE (personal protective equipment) protocols.
Due to the layout and size of the building, social distancing was in place and followed. Staff had taken steps that supported people with social distancing where-ever possible. The management were aware of zoning guidelines but did not need to implement it as no people were COVID-19 confirmed or suspected in this location.
The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the vetted supplier ensured it complied with the quality standards. Staff had infection control training and understood the correct donning and doffing procedure.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Iris Hayter House accommodates up to 13 people with mental health needs in one purpose-built building. On the day of our inspection 12 were living in the home.
People's experience of using this service
Medicines were not always managed safely. Records were not always accurate and safe recording procedures for bottled medicines were not always followed. However, we established people received their medicines as prescribed.
The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. However, these systems were not always effective and did not identify our concerns relating to medicines.
People told us staff were caring. Staff's commitment and compassion enabled people to receive care from staff who knew them well.
People received safe care from skilled and knowledgeable staff. People told us they felt safe receiving care from the service. Staff fully understood their responsibilities to identify and report any concerns. The provider had safe recruitment and selection processes in place.
Risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. The service promoted positive risk taking, enabling people to remain independent. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to maintain good health and to meet their nutritional needs.
The registered manager and staff strived to provide safe care and support. The registered manager worked with GPs and other healthcare professions to ensure the service responded to people's changing needs safely and effectively. People's care was personalised and matched their needs, which promoted their wellbeing and improved their quality of life.
Staff culture was positive, and the team was caring. This had resulted in the provision of compassionate and personalised care. The service had a clear management and staffing structure in place. Staff worked well as a team and had a sense of pride working at the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
At our last inspection in March 2017 the service was rated as Good.
Why we inspected:
This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.
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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated good:
People remained safe living in the home. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend with people. Risk assessments were carried out and promoted positive risk taking which enable people to live their lives as they chose. People received their medicines safely.
People continued to receive effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's G.P's to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.
The service continued to provide support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion. Staff respected people as individuals and treated them with dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they required to meet those needs.
The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly. People had access to a variety of activities that met their individual needs.
The service was led by a registered manager who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. There was a positive culture that valued people, relatives and staff and promoted a caring ethos.
This inspection took place on 31 March 2015. It was an unannounced inspection. The service had met all of the outcomes we inspected against at our last inspection on 26 September 2013.
Iris Hayter House is a residential home registered for up to 13 people with a diagnosis of mental health problems. The service provides care and accommodation and has strong links with community mental health teams. On the day of our inspection 12 people were living at the service.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 told us staff knew how to support them. Comments included; “The staff do everything well for me” and “They seem to know what they’re doing.” Staff told us and records confirmed they had the training and support to meet people’s needs and support them safely.
People told us they enjoyed living at the home. Comments included; “Excellent care, I’ve got no complaints.” People also told us they valued the support they received from staff. They told us staff spent time with them and they were “Understanding.”
Staff understood the needs of people and we saw that care was provided with kindness and compassion. People spoke positively about the home and the care they received. Staff took time to talk with people or provide activities such as and arts and crafts, games and religious services.
All staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the home.
People told us they felt safe. Staff told us, and training records confirmed that staff received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. Records confirmed the service notified the appropriate authorities where concerns relating to abuse were identified.
Risks to people were managed and reviewed. Where risks to people had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to reduce the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe.
The service ensured staff had the necessary skills to support people through, training, and regular supervision. Staff told us they understood their roles and responsibilities and received the support they needed.
People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored securely and accurate records maintained. Staffs received competency based training in administering medicines and were observed by the registered manager before being signed as competent.
People had enough to eat and drink. People told us that they enjoyed the meals provided. One person said “I really like the food, it’s good and hot.” We saw the staff were kind and provided the support people needed with eating and drinking.
The registered manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) which governs decision-making on behalf of adults who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. People’s capacity to make decisions was regularly assessed.
People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided in the home. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements. These systems ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.
Senior managers regularly visited the home and staff told us they were approachable and supportive. One care worker told us they were “Absolutely wonderful.”
We visited Iris Hayter House in July 2013 and found concerns regarding assessing and measuring the quality of service provided. The service sent us an action plan about how they would address these concerns.
We revisited the service and looked at the care plans for people and saw that they had been reviewed and revised care plans had been implemented. For example, one person's bed had been fitted with rubber feet to reduce the risk of falls. Risk assessments had been reviewed and we saw detailed actions taken including referrals to specialists where appropriate.
Residential meetings had been re-organised and we saw that any issues raised were addressed. We also saw that attendance at the meetings had increased because of changes made to the timing of the meetings. This was at the request of people who used the service.
We looked at the audits for the service and saw that people's needs were responded to. For example, we noted that one audit identified three people had diabetes and the provider had organised training for care workers with Oxfordshire County Council to equip them to provide appropriate care.
We spoke with four members of care staff. They all said they liked working at the home. One said "I love my job, we are supported, there is lots of training and I learn all the time. It is so interesting and rewarding". Another said "I have been here years and I love this place".
We looked at care staff records and saw that staff were recruited and selected in line with the provider's policy on recruitment and selection. We also looked at how the provider measured the quality of the service by looking at surveys, audits and records. These documents were completed but they were difficult for the manager to locate. The office where records were kept was cluttered and disorganised.
The provider did not always use information to learn from events and respond to peoples' needs. We looked at care plans for people using the service and found them to be complete. However, it was difficult to find specific and important information relating to people's care and welfare needs. Some risks were not always effectively managed.
We spent some time in the communal lounge. There was a relaxed atmosphere with people talking to each other and sharing what they had been doing that day. Some people had been out with staff and others had been to the day centre. Some people had chosen to remain in the home due to the weather. People told us that they were consulted about their care and had a say in what, where and how they wanted care to be provided. People had a choice about the food on a daily basis and also could eat away from the dining room and in their own room if they wished.