You are here

Archived: Harefield Hall Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 June 2016

This inspection took place on 14 April 2016 and was unannounced. There were no concerns at the last inspection of April 2014. Harefield Hall provides accommodation for up to 21 older people. At the time of our visit there were 19 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 was also the owner and registered provider of Harefield Hall. For the purpose of the report we will refer to the registered manager.

People were ‘very happy’ living at the home and we received positive comments about their views and experiences throughout our visit. People told us they felt safe because the staff were “Caring and enjoyed what they did”. The registered manager listened to people and staff to ensure there were enough staff to meet people's needs. They demonstrated their responsibilities in recognising changing circumstances within the service to help ensure that staffing levels and skill mix was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. They enjoyed attending training sessions and sharing what they had learnt with colleagues. The registered manager and deputy supported staff at all times.

People and their relatives felt staff were caring and kind. Comments included, “I love coming here to visit the staff are so pleasant”, “My relative is treated with good humour, patience and kindness” and, “The care is without question excellent”. Staff had a good awareness of individuals' needs and treated people in a warm and respectful manner. The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about people's lives before they started using the service. Every effort was made to enhance this knowledge so that their life experiences remained meaningful.

People received appropriate care and support because there were effective systems in place to assess, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate people's needs. People were involved throughout these processes. This ensured their needs were clearly identified and the support they received was meaningful and personalised. Regular monitoring and reviews meant that referrals had been made to appropriate health and social care professionals and where necessary care and support had been changed to accurately reflect people's needs. People experienced a lifestyle which met their individual expectations, capacity and preferences.

Staff demonstrated a genuine passion and commitment for the roles they performed and individual responsibilities. It was important to them those living at the service felt ‘valued and happy’. One staff member recently wrote in a questionnaire, “I enjoy the variety, making people smile and feeling like I have made a difference”.

Staff embraced new initiatives with the support of the registered manager and deputy. They continued to look at the needs of people who used the service and ways to improve these so that people felt able to make positive changes. In a survey completed in February 2016, people wrote, “Don’t change a thing, it’s a success. You should be proud of yourselves”, “I am pleased to say Harefield Hall and the staff are first class” and, “If only all homes were run like Harefield Hall”.

Inspection areas



Updated 21 June 2016

The service was safe.

Staff had received training in safeguarding so they would recognise abuse and know what to do if they had any concerns.

People received care from staff who took steps to protect them from unnecessary harm. Risks had been appropriately assessed and staff had been provided with clear guidance on the management of identified risks.

There were enough skilled, experienced staff on duty to support people safely.

People were protected through the homes recruitment procedures. These procedures helped ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

People were protected against the risks associated with unsafe use and management of medicines.

People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.



Updated 21 June 2016

The service was effective.

People received good standards of care from staff who understood their needs and preferences. Staff were encouraged and keen to learn new skills and increase their knowledge and understanding

People made decisions and choices about their care. Staff were confident when supporting people unable to make choices themselves, to make decisions in their best interests in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People had access to a healthy diet which promoted their health and well-being, taking into account their nutritional requirements and personal preferences.

The service recognised the importance of seeking advice from community health and social care professionals so that people's health and wellbeing was promoted and protected.



Updated 21 June 2016

The service was caring.

The provider, registered manager and staff were fully committed to providing people with the best possible care.

Staff were passionate about enhancing people’s lives and promoting their well-being.

Staff treated people with dignity, respect and compassion.

People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.



Updated 21 June 2016

The service was responsive.

The service was responsive.

Staff identified how people wished to be supported so that it was meaningful and personalised.

Independence was encouraged and supported wherever possible.

People were encouraged to pursue personal interests and hobbies and to join in activities.

People were listened to and staff supported them if they had any concerns or were unhappy.



Updated 21 June 2016

The service was well-led.

The vision and values of the home were paramount in the way care and support was provided to people.

People, their relatives and staff were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service, to ensure planned improvements focused on people's experiences.

People benefitted from staff who felt supported and were motivated to learn and develop, embracing the culture of the home to ‘be the best’ they could.

The managers strove to maintain, sustain and further improve the experiences of people living in the home through quality assurance processes.