• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Highfield House Residential Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

17 Sycamore Terrace, Haswell, County Durham, DH6 2AG (0191) 526 1450

Provided and run by:
Mrs Susan Burns and Mrs Marion Burns

All Inspections

27 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Highfield House Residential Home is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 25 people. The home is a detached, two storey, converted house set in its own grounds in a quiet residential area of Haswell, County Durham. On the first day of our inspection there were 9 people using the service, although this varied slightly during the inspection. The home comprised of 20 bedrooms on the ground floor and 5 bedrooms on the first floor. 10 bedrooms were en-suite. We saw that the accommodation included two lounges, a dining room, two bathrooms, a shower room, several communal toilets, a conservatory and an enclosed garden.

This inspection took place on 27, 28 July and 2 August 2016 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the registered provider did not know we would be visiting.

At our last inspection of Highfield House Residential Home on 14, 19 and 27 January 2016 we reported that the registered providers had not made consistent improvements following previous inspections. The registered providers were in breach of the following:

Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment

Regulation 15 Premises and equipment

Regulation 17 Good governance

Regulation 18 Staffing

The overall rating for this service was ‘Inadequate’ and the service was placed in ‘Special measures’. This is where services are kept under review by CQC and if immediate action has not been taken to propose to cancel the registered provider’s registration of the service, the location will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that registered providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

At this inspection we found significant improvements had not been made to meet these requirements and Highfield House Residential Home was inadequate in four of the five areas we inspected.

The home was not well run, operational procedures were disorganised and oversight by the registered providers was ineffective.

We found no evidence that a systematic approach to resolve previously identified regulatory requirements was now in place. The registered providers did not ensure that effective action had taken place following a CQC inspection in January 2016 and people using the service were found to be at risk, despite the home being placed in ‘Special Measures’ and enforcement actions taking place.

The registered providers did not act in a timely fashion to achieve compliance, meet service users’ needs and adequately protect them from receiving poor care.

We found that the registered providers did not operate effective systems and processes to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the services provided

Management monitoring of the home had failed to identify serious shortcomings in the quality and safety of services provided.

At the time of our inspection visit, the home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. The manager had been registered with CQC since 26 August 2014. The homes statement of purpose stated that the registered manager was undertaking an undergraduate degree in care home management. However we did not find any evidence of the impact of this training in the management systems at the home.

Also the registered manager and registered providers who were undertaking the leadership role at the home did not demonstrate competent skills and knowledge were held in the areas that the home purports to specialise for example care of people with Dementia type illness.

There was no indication that there was any organised management process for decision making and effective communication of basic tasks involved in the running of the home was not in place.

Medication administration procedures and systems were not robust and did not protect people living at the home from risk associated with poor medicines management. Medicines that have a sedative effect were found to be used without guidance or sufficient agreed practice to safeguard and protect people living at the home.

We found arrangements for safe food production did not protect the health and wellbeing of people living at the home.

People at the home were at increased risk of harm because the registered providers had failed to make adequate plans to be used in the event of a fire and equipment was adequately maintained which increased the risk of a fire taking place.

We found the hot water delivery systems at the home did not protect people living there from injury from water that was too hot. During our inspection the registered providers put in place contingency arrangements to keep people safe.

We found arrangements to ensure control of infections at the home were not robust. Service users and staff at the home were not protected from the risk of water borne infections such as Legionella and actions to detect, prevent and control the spread of infections had not been completed. This showed that people living at the home were not protected from risks from their environment and arrangements to reduce these risks had not been taken.

This showed that people working and living at the home were exposed to unnecessary risk because the registered providers did not ensure that chemical products were used safely.

The registered providers had failed to ensure that some people’s dietary requirements were accurate before making substantial changes to their diet posing significant risks to people’s health and well-being.

We found that the physical environment throughout the home did not reflect best practice in dementia care. The provider had not considered best practice in the design and use of other areas of the home such as the kitchen

The registered providers and registered manager did not have sufficient understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure people’s rights were protected.

People who were living at the home were not being supported by staff who had been trained in their conditions. People may not always be protected from the risks of abuse because staff training in safeguarding was not up to date.

None of the staff or the registered manager had been trained in medicines management sufficient to update them on None of the staff or the registered manager had been trained in medicines management to update them in line with current NICE guidance, ‘Managing medicines in care homes.’

The staff took an interest in people and their relatives to provide individual personal care. However people were not always treated with dignity, their privacy was not always protected and the registered provider did not show respect for peoples personal possessions.

Arrangements to ensure timely care planning with other services did not take place and did not ensure the health safety and welfare of service users was promoted when they transferred to other services.

The registered provider had not taken steps to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people at the home.

We found changes to care planning arrangements had not been made or considered following significant incidents which put people at the home at risk from receiving inappropriate care.

During our inspection we found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the registered providers to take at the back of the full version of the report.

14, 19 and 27 January 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 14, 19 and 27 January 2016 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the registered provider did not know we would be visiting. On 15 and 16 December 2014 we completed an inspection at Highfield House Residential Home and informed the registered provider they were in breach of a number of regulations including medicines, consent to care and treatment and monitoring the quality of the service and required improvements to make the service safe, effective and well-led.

We completed a focused inspection at Highfield House Residential Home on 29 June 2015 following concerns raised by a healthcare professional from the clinical commissioning group’s infection prevention and control team about the infection control arrangements within the service and the lack of progress made towards complying with an action plan from an audit undertaken by them in April 2015. We found that action had been taken to improve the arrangements in place for infection control and whilst we also found evidence to support improvements had been made to address some of the breaches identified in December 2014, we did not improve the rating for the service because to do so required consistent good practice over time.

Whilst completing this visit we reviewed the action the registered provider had taken to address the above breaches. We found that whilst the registered provider had ensured some improvements had been made in the area of consent to care and treatment, the service was still in breach of a number of regulations including medicines, premises and equipment, staffing and monitoring the quality of the service.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures’. The service will be kept under review and if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe. Improvements were needed in many areas where the registered provider was not meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Highfield House Residential Home is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 25 people. The home is a detached, two storey, converted country house set in its own grounds in a quiet residential area of Haswell, County Durham. On the first day of our inspection there were 12 people using the service, although this varied slightly during the inspection. The home comprised of 20 bedrooms on the ground floor and 5 bedrooms on the first floor. 10 bedrooms were en-suite. We saw that the accommodation included two lounges, a dining room, two bathrooms, a shower room, several communal toilets, a conservatory and an enclosed garden.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

We found there was no clear leadership or accountability within the service and the governance systems were ineffective.

People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the standard of care at Highfield House Residential Home. Everyone we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they were receiving and described staff as very kind and caring.

We found that care and treatment was not planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare.

People were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. Staff did not follow the registered provider’s medicines policy and their competency to administer medicine was not routinely assessed.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had a recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. Staff training records were not up to date and staff did not always receive an annual appraisal.

There were appropriate security measures in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service and the registered provider had procedures in place for managing the maintenance of the premises.

The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home but could be more suitably designed for people with dementia type conditions.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw mental capacity assessments had been completed for people and best interest decisions made for their care and treatment. Care records contained evidence of consent.

People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people at meal times when required.

The home had a programme of activities in place for people who used the service.

Care records did not always show people’s needs had been assessed. Care plans and risk assessments were not always in place when required. Care plans were not always written in a person centred way and reviews were repetitive.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place.

The quality assurance systems in place were not sufficiently effective to assess, monitor and drive improvement in the quality and the safety of the service provided.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

29 June 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 15 and 16 December 2014 and informed the provider they were in breach of a number of legal requirements including the management of medicines, consent to care and treatment and assessing and monitoring the quality of the service.

After our inspection in December 2014, a healthcare professional from the infection prevention and control team raised concerns about the infection control arrangements within the service and the lack of progress made towards complying with an action plan from an audit undertaken in April 2015.

The registered provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We undertook this unannounced focused inspection on the 29 June 2015 to review the action the provider had taken to address the breaches. We also discussed the concerns about infection control with the registered manager and looked at the improvements made in this area. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Highfield House Residential Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Highfield House Residential Home provides care and accommodation for up to 25 people. On the 29 June 2015 there were 16 people using the service.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

We saw the provider had taken measures to ensure people were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

We found the provider was implementing recommendations from the infection prevention and control audit undertaken in April 2015.

We discussed the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) with the registered manager. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. We found the provider had made applications under the Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

We found evidence of mental capacity assessments or best interest decision making in the care records and staff were following the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make particular decisions.

We saw the provider had introduced a new system to record the views and comments from people who used the service, their relatives, visitors or stakeholders about the quality of the service provided.

15, 16 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 15 and 16 December 2014 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Highfield House Residential Home provides care and accommodation for up to 25 people. On the days of our inspection there were 12 people using the service.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 was not present during our inspection due to illness. The registered providers were present.

Highfield House Residential Home was last inspected by CQC on 6 September 2013 and was compliant.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom.

We discussed DoLS with the provider and looked at records. Staff were not always following the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make particular decisions. For example, the provider had not made an application under the Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for one person, even though their liberty was being restricted.

People were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff.

Training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions and appraisals, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people in the dining room at lunch time when required.

The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home and was suitably designed for people with dementia.

One of the downstairs corridors had not been appropriately maintained and was poorly lit making it unsuitable for older people or those with dementia as it could increase people’s anxiety and may lead to trip and fall accidents.

People who used the service, and family members, were complimentary about the standard of care at Highfield House Residential Home. They told us, “They are very caring.” “We know she’s safe, looked after and well cared for.” “We have total peace of mind now.” “It’s changed our lives.” and “Over the moon with it.”

We saw staff supporting and helping to maintain people’s independence. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect and people were encouraged to care for themselves where possible.

We saw that the home had a programme of activities in place for people who used the service. We spoke with a family member of a person who used the service who told us “She loves the bingo.” “They’ve had entertainers in.” and “She likes word searches.”

All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed before they moved into Highfield House Residential Care Home and we saw care plans were written in a person centred way.

We saw that pre-admission assessments had been carried out. We saw that daily records were up to date. Care plans were in place and contained details of the individual’s “Current situation”, “Objectives” and “Intervention”. Risk assessments were also in place when required. Each care plan had a “Care plan monthly log” review sheet, which were up to date. We saw weight, malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) and bowels records were completed regularly and were up to date.

We saw evidence in care records of cooperation between care staff and healthcare professionals to ensure people received effective care. For example, one person had been referred to the Speech and Language Therapy Team (SALT) as she was having difficulty swallowing.

We saw a copy of the provider’s compliments, concerns and complaints procedure, and saw that complaints were investigated. We found people were confident if they made a complaint that it would be responded to.

We could not confirm that the provider gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources. The provider told us they did not have a formal procedure in place for gathering the views and comments about the quality of the service provided at Highfield House Residential Home from people using the service, their relatives, visitors or stakeholders.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

6 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who used the service and four relatives. The people we spoke with were extremely satisfied with the service. They felt the staff were knowledgeable and competent. They felt the home was run like a large family unit.

One person told us, 'The staff are very, very good. If you ask for anything to be done for you, then they do it'. People also said, 'We are like one big family' and 'They are extremely kind.'

We found people's needs were assessed and care was planned in line with their needs. The staff were very knowledgeable about people's care needs and how to meet them. We noted that the staff team had been very stable and all of the staff had been in post for many years. We found that the owner/manager made sure the home provided effective care and encouraged staff development.

The home was well-maintained and the owner/manager had an on-going programme of redecoration which ensured it was kept to a high standard,

We found that effective procedures were in place should people wish to complain.

28 May 2012

During a routine inspection

Overall, people we spoke with said they were very satisfied with the care they received.

One person said, 'When I was in hospital I was given lots of information about the home before I moved in. My daughter looked around here and she was happy with what she saw.'

Another person said, I have lived in the village all of my life and I knew lots of people here, so coming here was an easy decision for me, I have no regrets.'

Another person said, I have been here for three years and the care I receive is very good. All the staff, including Susan and Marion (The proprietors) are very nice, and they spend lots of time chatting to me about everything, they are always asking me what I want or need. I am happy to be living here, it's very nice.'

Everybody we spoke with told us they felt safe and they trusted the care staff employed by the service. People were also clear about how and who to report any concerns about their safety to.

People told us that they were happy with the facilities within the home.

One person said, 'I have a very pleasant bedroom and everywhere is always nice and clean.'

Everyone spoke highly of the staff and the owners.

One person told us,' They are all wonderful, (Staff) they do a great job and I am very satisfied with the support I receive.'