Archived: Halcyon Days

Halcyon Days provides care and accommodation for up to 57 people. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people living at the home. Some people living at the home may be living with dementia.

The home was required to have a registered manager in post but at the time of our inspection the manager had not completed their application to register with The Care Quality Commission as the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received their medicines as they had been prescribed. Medicines were administered by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to do so.

Staff were aware of the safeguarding process. Personalised risk assessments were in place to reduce the risk of harm to people, as were risk assessments connected to the running of the home, and these were reviewed regularly. Accidents and incidents were recorded and the causes of these analysed so that preventative action could be taken to reduce the number of occurrences.

There were enough skilled, qualified staff to provide for people’s needs. Robust recruitment and selection processes were in place and the provider had taken steps to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people who lived at the home. They received training to ensure that they had the necessary skills to care for and support the people who lived at the home and were supported by way of supervisions and appraisals.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and they had been involved in determining their care needs and the way in which their care was to be delivered. Their consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were met.

People had a variety of nutritious food and drink available to them. Snacks, fruit and a choice of drinks were available to people throughout the day.

Staff were kind, caring and protected people’s dignity. They treated people with respect and supported people in a way that allowed them to be as independent as possible.

There was an effective complaints system in place. Information was available to people about how they could make a complaint should they need to. People were assisted to access other healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

People and staff were encouraged to attend meetings with the manager at which they could discuss aspects of the service and care delivery. People were asked for feedback about the service to enable improvements to be made. There was an effective quality assurance system in place.

Two inspectors from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) conducted this inspection. We looked at five care records and spoke with twelve people who used the service. We also spoke with relatives that were visiting the home and six staff. We observed the care that was being provided to people around the home.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People had up to date risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as possible and these were reviewed regularly by staff to ensure that they correctly reflected the needs of the person. Staff were not always aware of hazards around the home with regards to infection control. This was because staff did not wash their hands before providing care to people. We also found that in some areas that had been previously identified in our inspection, the changes had not been made so people were still at risk. We also found within the kitchen that the microwave and toaster did not meet the required standards.

Is the service effective?

People's care needs were assessed before they came to live at the care home and their needs were reviewed regularly to ensure that any changes in a person's individual needs were identified. We observed that people were happy and smiling and one person told us that 'I like it here, the staff make life comfortable'. We observed people to be well dressed and their personal care needs had been met.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff were caring and compassionate towards people. One person told us 'The staff are really kind here". We saw that one person had celebrated their birthday the previous day and that balloons and banners were still posted around the communal areas. We were told by the person that 'They did a wonderful party for me" and 'one of the young carers painted my nails pink for my birthday. I never usually have painted nails but it looks nice'. 'I cannot praise the staff highly enough'. This showed that the staff were caring towards the people using the service.

Is the service responsive?

The home ensured people were stimulated. They had activities available for people to participate in and an activity person was also available to organise and plan each activity. People were able to access the home's hair salon and one person told us 'I have my hair done weekly here as I always had it done weekly before coming here and I like my hair to look nice'.

Is the service well led?

The service had a registered manager in place. Quality assurance systems were in place and we saw that the manager had acted on the actions that were identified to improve the quality of service so the home was able to meet the regulations. There were regular audits in place to ensure that the home was meeting the regulations required, these included, fire safety, care plan audits and infection control.

People who used the service and staff were asked for their opinions, and we noted that feedback had been acted on.

People told us that they were happy with the care that they received. One person told us, "I am well looked after. The staff are good. I have no complaints." They told us that they liked the food that they were provided with and that there was plenty of choice. One person commented, "I cannot complain about the food. It is good. I'm not hungry after meals."

During our inspection we found areas where the standard of cleanliness was not acceptable on both units of the home. We spoke with three care workers who told us that they were aware of the home's infection control policy. However, all three were wearing nail varnish in contradiction to the policy.

The provider had not taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained.

We found that people's care plans and risk assessment had not always been updated. Changes to people's needs and risk assessments had been recorded on a review form at the back of the care record. A care worker would therefore be unaware of any changes to the care plans or associated risks unless they looked through the whole care record. Care records were also in two formats which would be confusing to agency staff.

We found that people had their care planned and delivered according to their specific needs. People were protected from unsafe situations because the staff followed care plans that prevented people from coming to harm. We also found that people living with dementia were able to take part in activities that enhanced their cognitive abilities.

People said they felt safe living at the home and we found that staff were sufficiently knowledgeable about safeguarding to identify the potential for abuse and respond properly if it occurred.

The service supported staff through the use of effective supervision and a training regime that both equipped staff for their role and allowed them to obtain professional qualifications.

People were able to contribute feedback and suggestions to the way the home was run. One visitor we spoke with told us they received a monthly report from the provider about their relative's life at the home and that they had the opportunity to contribute feedback and send it back to the provider with comments and suggestions.