You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 23 March 2017

This inspection took place on 21 February 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in October 2014 the service was rated as good.

Hadley Lawns residential and nursing home provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 44 older people, some of whom have dementia. The ground floor supports people with residential care needs and the first floor supports people who also have nursing needs. On the day of our visit there were 41 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were positive about the service and the staff who supported them. People told us they liked the staff and that they were treated with dignity and kindness.

Staff treated people with respect and as individuals with different needs and preferences. Staff understood that people’s diversity was important and something that needed to be upheld and valued. Relatives we spoke with said they felt welcome at any time in the home; they felt involved in care planning and were confident that their comments and concerns would be acted upon. The care records contained detailed information about how to provide support, what the person liked, disliked and their preferences. People who used the service along with families and friends had completed a life history with information about what was important to people. The staff we spoke with told us this information helped them to understand the person.

The care staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s care needs, significant people and events in their lives, and their daily routines and preferences. They also understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns.

Risk assessments were in place for a number of areas and were regularly updated, and staff had a good knowledge and understanding of many complex health conditions.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to care for the number of people with complex needs in the home.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Medicines were managed safely. Staff had detailed guidance to follow when administering medicines. Staff completed extensive training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective.

People were satisfied with the food provided at the home and the support they received in relation to nutrition and hydration.

There was an open and transparent culture and encouragement for people to provide feedback. The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. A complaints book, policy and procedure were in place. People told us they were aware of how to make a complaint and were confident they could express any concerns and these would be addressed.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA.The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).We found that the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and conditions on authorisations to deprive people of their liberty were being met.

The management team provided good leadership and people using the service, relatives and staff told us they were approachable, visible and supportive. We saw that regular audits were carried out by the provider’s head office to monitor the quality of care.

Inspection areas



Updated 23 March 2017

The service remains safe



Updated 23 March 2017

The service remains effective



Updated 23 March 2017

The service remains caring



Updated 23 March 2017

The service remains responsive



Updated 23 March 2017

The service remains well-led