You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 January 2018

We inspected Hayes Court on 23 and 24 November 2017. The inspection was unannounced. Hayes Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Hayes Court is registered to accommodate up to 56 elderly people. At the time of this inspection 52 people were using the service. Twelve of these people were living at the home on a short-term basis for reablement after a hospital discharge.

We previously inspected Hayes Court in December 2016. At that inspection, we gave the service an overall rating of "Requires Improvement". We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to there being an insufficient number of staff to meet people’s needs, the lack of effective systems to ensure people received their medicines safely, the provider's failure to follow the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the lack of person-centred care and the lack of effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of care people received. The provider sent us an action plan setting out when the required improvements would be made. These actions have been completed.

The service had 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. The registered manager had many years experience working in adult social care.

Hayes Court is located in a quiet residential road in Kenley. On both days of our inspection, people's rooms and the communal areas were clean and free of unpleasant odours. We have made a recommendation that the provider finds out more about making adaptations, based on current best practice in relation to the specialist needs of people living with dementia.

Staff had received training in infection control. They consistently followed the provider's infection control policies and procedures which helped to protect people from the risk and spread of infection.

People felt safe from abuse living at Hayes Court. Staff had been trained in protecting adults from abuse and had good knowledge of how to recognise abuse and report any concerns. People were protected from avoidable harm because assessments completed by the clinical lead identified the risks each person faced and gave staff guidance on how to manage those risks.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They supported people in a way that maintained their privacy and dignity. People enjoyed living in the home and were satisfied with the quality of care they received. People told us the quality of food was good and they had a sufficient amount to eat and drink.

Staff supported people to maintain good health and access external healthcare professionals. The provider had significantly improved the systems in place in relation to storing, recording and administering people's medicines which helped to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

The provider had a thorough recruitment process which was adhered to by the management and included conducting appropriate checks on staff before they began to work with people. There were enough staff working at the home with the right mix of skills and experience to meet people's needs. Staff were appropriately supported by the provider to provide effective care through an induction, relevant training, supervision and appraisal.

People were supported by a consistent staff team; many of whom had worked at the service for several years. They knew people well and understood people's routines and preferences. People were given choices and their wishes were listened to and acted on. Every person had an individualised support plan which they and or they relatives had contributed to. Staff supported people in a way and at a pace that suited people.

The provider organised regular activities inside the home and since our last inspection, had increased the opportunities for people to go out on trips or participate in activities outside the home. People were satisfied with the range of activities available to them.

Staff respected people’s individual differences and supported them with any religious or cultural needs. Visitors were made to feel welcome and staff enabled people to maintain relationships with their families and friends.

The provider encouraged people to express their views and acted on their feedback in order to better meet their needs. The provider encouraged people to raise any concerns they had and responded to them in a timely manner. People knew how to make a complaint and told us they would do so if the needs arose. The provider also acted on recommendations from external health and social care professionals to improve people's experience of living at Hayes Court.

There was an established staff structure which staff and people using the service were aware of. This meant that staff understood their roles and responsibilities and people knew how to escalate their concerns. The provider had created a system which allowed for greater staff specialisation and had improved the systems for assessing and monitoring the quality of care people received. The provider's policies and procedures were up do date and regularly reviewed. People's records were securely stored and well organised. The service was well organised and well-led.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 January 2018

The service was safe.

Processes and procedures for ensuring people received their medicines safely were clear and adhered to by staff. There was sufficient staff to meet people�s needs.

People felt safe and staff knew about their responsibility to protect people from abuse. Care was planned to protect people from avoidable harm.

The provider had effective procedures in place to protect people from the risk and spread of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 January 2018

The service was effective.

The provider supported staff through induction, training, supervision and appraisal to help them to meet people�s needs.

Staff supported people to eat and drink sufficient amounts, monitored their general health and well-being and supported people to access healthcare services when they needed to.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The home was clean and free of unpleasant odours. The provider should seek advice on good practice in adapting the environment to meet the needs of people living with dementia.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 January 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, attentive and knew people well.

Staff respected people's right to be treated with dignity and right to privacy.

People were supported by staff to be as independent as they could be. Family members and friends were made to feel welcome and had no restrictions placed on them when visiting the service.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People and their relatives were involved in their care planning and felt in control of the care and they received. The care people received met their needs.

People knew how to make suggestions and complaints about the care they received and their comments were acted on.

People�s preferences and choices for their end of life care were clearly recorded, kept under review and acted on. People received compassionate care at the end of their lives.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 January 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a clear management structure in place at the home which people living in the home and staff understood. Staff knew their roles and accountabilities within the structure.

People living in the home, their relatives and staff felt able to approach the management about their concerns.

There were comprehensive systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of care people received which the management and staff consistently applied.