You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 August 2014
Date of Publication: 20 September 2014
Inspection Report published 20 September 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 26 August 2014

During a routine inspection

Below is a summary of what we found when we inspected The Old Hall on 26 August 2014.

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with four people who used the service, one relative, the registered manager and four staff. In addition, we looked at care records, the arrangements to keep people safe from abuse and quality assurance.

We considered our inspection's findings to answer questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service caring?

We found that the service was caring. We observed that staff were respectful, kind and attentive. People we spoke with told us that staff were kind and helpful. One person we spoke with told us; �I have nothing but good things to say about the home. I would describe it as home from home.�

Relatives we spoke with told us that staff were polite and courteous to people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the service was responsive. We observed that people�s individual needs for care had been assessed. Staff knew about each person�s care needs, choices and preferred routines.

People told us that their care needs were met and that staff listened to what they said and provided care in line with their changing needs and wishes.

The provider had a complaints policy in place and staff had received training in how to manage complaints. They were able to tell us how they would escalate any concerns raised.

Is the service safe?

We found that the service was safe. Systems were in place to make sure the manager and staff learnt from events such as complaints, concerns and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff we spoke with and records we looked at confirmed that staff were trained and understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is law which protects people who are unable to make decisions for themselves.

Is the service effective?

We found that the service was effective. People�s health and care needs were assessed. People, and where appropriate, their relatives, were involved in reviewing their care plans. Specialist dietary requirements, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

Records showed people had access to a range of healthcare professionals some of whom visited people at the home.

Is the service well led?

We found that the service was well led.This was because people had been consulted about their experience of using the service When suggestions were made we saw evidence that these were considered and used to improve the service that people received.

There was a clear line of management. This meant that important decisions about organising someone�s care were made by senior staff while carers could use their own judgement to provide a flexible service.