You are here

Archived: Hook Hall High Street Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 February 2016

This inspection took place on 8 December 2015 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service in November 2013 and we found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed.

The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 21 people who require assistance with personal care. On the day of the inspection there were 15 people living at the home. The home is situated in Hook, a village close to the town of Goole, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The property is a listed building that is situated within its own grounds.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 told us that they felt safe whilst they were living at Hook Hall. People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm. Staff also told us that they would not hesitate to use the home’s whistle blowing procedure if needed.

Staff confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them. Staff had received training on the administration of medication and people told us they were happy with how they received their medicines.

New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies and this ensured that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. On the day of the inspection we saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people’s individual needs.

People told us that staff were caring and that their privacy and dignity was respected. People told us that they received the support they required from staff and that their care plans were reviewed and updated as required.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and they told us they were very happy with the food provided. We saw that people were encouraged to drink throughout the day.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and we saw that any complaints or concerns raised had been dealt with professionally. There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who received a service, and feedback had been analysed to identify any improvements that needed to be made.

The quality audits undertaken by the registered provider were designed to identify any areas that needed to improve in respect of people’s care and welfare. Staff told us that, on occasions, incidents that had occurred had been used as a learning opportunity for staff.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 February 2016

The service was safe.

Staff had received training on safeguarding adults from abuse and moving and handling. This helped to protect people from the risk of harm.

There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. Staff had been recruited following robust policies and procedures.

People were protected against the risks associated with the use and management of medicines. People received their medicines at the times they needed them and in a safe way.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 February 2016

The service was effective.

We found the provider understood how to meet the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff undertook training that equipped them with the skills they needed to carry out their roles.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met, and people told us they were happy with the meals provided by the home.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 February 2016

The service was caring.

People who lived at the home and their relatives told us that staff were caring and we observed positive relationships between people and staff on the day of the inspection.

People’s individual care needs were understood by staff, and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

We saw that people’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff and this was confirmed by the people who we spoke with.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 February 2016

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People’s care plans recorded information about their previous lifestyle and their preferences and wishes for care and support.

Visitors were made welcome at the home and people were encouraged to take part in suitable activities.

People told us that they had no concerns or complaints but they would not hesitate to speak to the registered manager if they had any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 February 2016

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager in post and there was evidence that the home was well managed.

There were sufficient opportunities for people who lived at the home, staff and relatives to express their views about the quality of the service provided.

Quality audits were being carried out to monitor that staff were providing safe care and that the premises provided a safe environment for people who lived and worked at the home.