You are here

Hallaton Manor Limited Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 May 2014
Date of Publication: 10 July 2014
Inspection Report published 10 July 2014 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 29 May 2014, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at care and assessment records for four people who used the service. We were told that the care record documentation was being updated. We saw that the new documentation was more user friendly. This meant that staff could more easily access the information they required. Each person had a care plan and risk assessment. There was a plan of care in place for each identified need and a risk assessment for each identified risk. For example, people had their risk of developing pressure ulcers and risk of becoming malnourished assessed. Where risk was identified management plans were in place. Staff took appropriate action such as referring to the person to the dietician and or community nursing team.

We spoke with 12 people who used the service. They told us they received the care and support they required. One person said “The staff here are great, they go at my pace (because I’m not as quick as I used to be).” Another person said “They encourage my independence, they don’t patronise me.”

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service. We saw that staff were professional and friendly when speaking with people who used the service. Staff we spoke with and a good understanding of people’s individual needs.

We looked at staffing numbers and skill mix. The provider may like to note that there was no evidence of any tools being used to decide on the numbers of staff required. Therefore it was difficult to establish if numbers were sufficient. The majority of people we spoke with said that staffing numbers were sufficient during the day and at night. People said that there was always a member of staff available when they needed them. Staff we spoke with told us that at times they were very busy and would like more time to spend interacting with people who used the service.

We looked at the social and recreational activities available to people. We saw that staff recorded information about people’s likes and interests. There was an activities organiser employed. We saw that people had opportunities to go out. There was a minibus to take people out into the local community. Some people were supported to visit friends and relatives. Other people went out shopping or out for lunch. Some people we spoke with felt that the activities organiser was too busy taking individual people out and this meant there was less time for organised activities in the home. We saw there was a four week programme of planned activities on display in the reception area. Two people who used the service were participating in weekly education sessions that were held at the service by a visiting teacher.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were only used when it was considered to be in the person’s best interest. When people who lacked the mental capacity to make a decision had their liberty deprived in order to keep them safe, staff had followed the correct procedures and consulted the DoLS team. At the time of our visit there were two people who used the service subject to a DoLS authorisation. We looked at care records and saw that the care plan for one person clearly set out the limitations of the deprivation and provided staff with clear instructions about how to provide care and support in the least restrictive way. The second care plan was being updated at the time of our visit. The registered manager had self-referred to the local authority quality improvement team (QIT). During our visit we spoke with a member of the QIT team and they were very positive about the improvements being made.