Hafod Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ New admissions to the service were requested to self isolate in their rooms for 14 days.

¿ Staff were seen to be wearing their personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly and knew how and where to put on and take off their PPE safely in line with government guidance.

¿ Regular touch points such as door handles, light switches and bannisters were cleaned regularly during the day.

¿ The home was part of the COVID 19 and Lateral Flow Device testing programme.

¿ There was clear and regular communication between the home and family members to keep them informed of their relative’s health and wellbeing.

¿ There was a large conservatory available to facilitate visits from family and friends. This could be accessed through a separate entrance, mitigating the risk of cross contamination into the home environment.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were not all able to fully verbalise their views therefore they were not able to tell us about their experience of living there. We observed the interactions between people and the staff supporting them. There were 13 people living in the service on the days we visited.

The management team and staff knew people well and understood their likes and preferences and health needs. Staff were caring and chatting with people as they moved around the service. Relatives told us they were welcome at any time and any concerns were listened and responded to.

People and staff told us the service was well managed. People said they were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff showed a true fondness for the people they cared for and there was a friendly atmosphere. People’s wellbeing was promoted.

Staff were recruited safely in sufficient numbers to ensure people’s needs were met. People and staff said there was limited time for social interaction and activity with staff. However, the registered manager was in the process of employing an activities coordinator to improve activities provided.

The environment was safe, and people had access to equipment where needed. The jacuzzi bath was currently out of action. However, the required part had been ordered. Staff had received appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their role safely, including the management of medicines.

There were positive working relationships with external professionals and a passion for continuous learning and improvement.

People were kept safe and protected from avoidable harm and abuse, and people had their medicines safely managed. Processes had been put into place to ensure a robust oversight. People lived in an environment which was fully assessed for safety.

People received personalised care and support, and had their human rights protected. Staff were competent in their roles and were well supported. Quality monitoring systems had been further developed.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 2 November 2016). However, it was rated as Requires Improvement in Well-Led. This had now improved to Good.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At this inspection, the service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Hafod Residential Home is a registered care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 16 older people. At the time of our inspection 15 people living at the home.

There was an acting manager in post and the owner had submitted an application to become the registered manager. 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.

Staff did not always complete risk assessment documents correctly, to ensure effective monitoring.

People were safe and secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe.

Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs.

People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.

People had a variety of food, drinks and snacks available throughout the day. They were able to choose the meals that they preferred to eat and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to stay healthy and had access to health care professionals as required. They were treated with kindness and compassion and there was positive communication and interaction between staff and the people living at the location.

People’s rights to privacy were upheld by staff that treated them with dignity and respect. People’s choices and independence were respected and promoted. Staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs.

People received care from staff that knew them well and benefitted from opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed.

The provider regularly consulted with stakeholders to identify how the quality of the service could be developed.

People's care and health care needs were planned and met in a personalised way. All staff spoken with told us they had the information they needed to care for people safely. All four staff told us the people living in the home told them what support they wanted. One person told us, 'I am old enough to make my decisions and staff respect them'. All nine people told us that they were asked about the help they needed. This meant people were involved in the care they received.

We saw and people spoken with told us they were given a choice of what they wanted to eat. We saw that assessments of people's dietary needs had been completed to ensure people stayed healthy. This meant people's nutritional needs were met.

Staff spoken with told us they felt supported by the manager and had regular training opportunities. This meant staff should have the skills to care for people safely.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and dignity. People told us that choices had been offered and their views had been taken into consideration. One person said, 'The staff have a really positive attitude. You can't fault them and they're very respectful.'

We found that medication systems were safe and that medication had been given to people as it had been prescribed by their doctor.

The home was clean and people told us they liked living there. The dining room, conservatory and one bedroom were being redecorated and refurbished.

We found that care records were informative and people told us their views were taken into consideration when planning their care.

There were systems in place to monitor how the home was run. Systems were being developed to ensure people using the service and their representative were able to tell staff what was important to them and influence how the service was delivered.