You are here

Hulton Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 23 August 2017

We carried out an inspection of Hulton Care Nursing Home (Nelson) on 26 and 27 July 2017. The first day was unannounced.

Hulton Care Nursing Home (Nelson) is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 30 people. The service is not registered to provide nursing care. The home specialises in providing care for older people and people living with dementia and is situated in a residential area near to Nelson town centre. The home is divided into two areas with the Nelson suite providing care for people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 30 people accommodated in the home.

The service was managed by a 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.

This was the first inspection of the home since the registration of a new provider.

During the inspection we found there were three breaches of the regulations, in respect of the management of risks, care planning and the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People told us they felt safe and staff were kind and caring. Safeguarding adults’ procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse. However, risk assessments had not always been carried out in line with people’s needs and preferences.

People were supported by enough skilled staff so their care and support could be provided at a time and pace convenient for them. Appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the home. People's medicines were managed appropriately and according to the records seen people received their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.

People’s mental capacity to make their own decisions had not been assessed and recorded in line the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant there was a risk that some people may not be supported in the least restrictive way possible.

Staff were supported in their roles via a system of training, supervision and appraisal. The area manager told us that a new programme of staff training was due to be introduced. All staff had the opportunity to attend meetings and provide feedback on the service. Staff spoken with told us they were well supported and had confidence in the registered manager.

There were appropriate arrangements in place to support people to have a varied and healthy diet. People had access to a GP and other health care professionals when they needed them. There were no restrictions placed on visitors and they were made welcome in the home.

Staff treated people in a respectful and dignified manner and people's privacy was respected. We observed people were happy, comfortable and relaxed with staff. People were offered the opportunity to participate in a variety of social activities. However, people were at risk of receiving inconsistent and unsafe support as care plans did not provide an accurate or up to date description of people's needs and preferences.

There was a complaints process in place and people were confident their concerns would be listened to and acted upon. However, at the time of the inspection, people living in the home did not have access to a complaints procedure.

The registered manager used a number of ways to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people, their relatives and staff, however we found a number of shortfalls during the inspection. The registered manager was forward looking and told us she was committed to making improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 23 August 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

Risk assessments had not always been carried out in line with people’s needs and preferences.

Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns to keep people safe from harm.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's care and support needs.

People's medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 23 August 2017

The service was not consistently effective.

Assessments of people's capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment were not undertaken in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were appropriately supported to carry out their roles effectively.

People were supported to have a sufficient amount to eat and drink. People had access to appropriate healthcare services.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 August 2017

The service was caring.

People appeared relaxed and comfortable and a good rapport had developed with the staff team.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and people were supported to express their views.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 23 August 2017

The service was not consistently responsive.

People could not be assured that they would receive the support they required as care plans did not all contain accurate, up to date information about the support people needed.

People were given the opportunity to participate in social activities both inside and outside the home.

People felt able to raise any concerns and there was a complaints policy in place. However, people did not have access to a complaints procedure.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 23 August 2017

The service was not always well led.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included seeking feedback from people living in the home, their relatives and the staff. However, we found shortfalls in several aspects of the operation of the service.

The home had a manager registered with the Commission. All people and staff were complimentary about the management of the service.