Halcyon Days

Updated 4 March 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 11 February 2022 and was unannounced.

Updated 4 March 2022

Halcyon Days is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Halcyon Days provides care and support to up to 57 people some of who live with dementia. At the time of our inspection 39 people were living at the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service does not have 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.

People felt safe at the service. Staff had received relevant training on how to safeguard people and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. Risks to people’s safety and well-being were identified and managed to keep them safe from harm. Assessments were in place that gave guidance to staff on how individual risks to people could be reduced. Medicines were stored appropriately, managed safely and audits completed. Relevant pre-employment checks had been completed for all staff and safe recruitment practices followed. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.

People felt staff were well trained. Staff had attended relevant training to undertake their role and spoke positively about the training they were provided. Staff felt supported and attended regular supervisions and appraisals. People’s consent was obtained, and staff were aware of how to support those people who may not be able to provide their consent. People’s nutritional needs were met and the deputy manager was reviewing how people were provided with additional nutritional snacks.

People told us that staff were friendly and respected their privacy. Staff knew people well and were knowledgeable with regards to people’s individual needs. People felt staff knew what was important to them and knew how people chose to spend their day. People's privacy and dignity was promoted.

People’s individual needs were assessed and people or where appropriate, their relatives were involved in the planning of how their support would be delivered. Care and support plans had been regularly reviewed to ensure that they were reflective of people's current needs. People were encouraged to provide feedback on the service they received and knew how to make a complaint.

People were not aware who the acting manager was. Staff were not aware of the plans to fill the managers vacancy, however were supportive and positive about the interim management of the service. People’s care records were not always updated when people’s needs changed. Quality assurance systems were in place and regular audits completed but although these were not effective, we could see ongoing development work was in place as a result of these findings. Staff were encouraged to attend team meetings which were held regularly.