You are here


Inspection carried out on 25 April 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 April 2016. This was unannounced on the 25 April 2016, announced on 26 April 2016 and completed by one inspector.

Hallaton Manor is a service that provides accommodation for up to 41 people. There were 39 people who used the service at the time of these inspections. The service is set on two levels and had a lift and stairs for access. There was a large garden area and the property is in the centre of farm land , so therefore offers extensive field views for people to enjoy.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that they felt safe at the Hallaton Manor and, in the main, systems and routines supported the safety of people. Medication was stored and recorded in line with guidelines, however, staff were often interrupted during the administration of medicines. This posed a potential risk of a medication error occurring during this time.

The records we reviewed showed that risks associated with people’s care and support had been assessed and actions had been taken to minimise such risks.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service and plans of care were developed from this initial assessment. People were involved in decisions about their care and support.

People had been involved in making day to day decisions about their care and support. People also felt that there were currently enough members of staff on duty to meet their care and support needs. People visiting the service also confirmed this.

Staff knew about the needs of the people that they supported and people had access to specialist healthcare advice, when they needed it.

Whilst there were times when we observed people being treated in a kind and caring manner, there were other times when they were not.

Checks had been carried out when new members of staff had been employed. This was to check that they were suitable to work at the service. The staff team had received training relevant to their role within the service and ongoing support had been provided.

Staff meetings and meetings for people who used the service and their relatives were regularly held. This provided people with the opportunity to be involved in how the service was run.

The staff team felt supported by the manager and senior members of staff. They also felt able to speak out about any concern they may have had of any kind.

People’s nutritional and dietary requirements were assessed and a balanced diet was provided, with a choice of meal at each mealtime. Monitoring charts used to monitor people’s food and fluid intake were maintained when these were needed. Whilst the majority of people had a good experience at meal times, We found that some people who did not.

There were systems in place to regularly monitor the service that was provided and these had been effective in the identification of areas that required any action. Any required actions had been planned, monitored and the outcomes recorded

Inspection carried out on 29 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team was made up of an inspector and an expert by experience. During our inspection we spoke with 12 people who used the service and with four members of staff.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us and the records we looked at.

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

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. Staff knew about risk management plans and told us about how they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that people's medicines were

managed in a safe way.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. The premises and equipment were well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and a care plan was in place for each assessed need. People said they received the care and support they required. One person said “The staff are alright here, it’s clean, I feel safe and I’m well fed. What more could I want?”

Staff had received the training they required to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, “Oh yes, you can always shout for a worker and they’ll come if you need anything. Always helpful, always kind”.

People were enabled to maintain relationships with people who were important to them. One person was regularly taken out to visit their family member.

People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. The provider had its own adapted minibus, which helped to keep people involved with their local community.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We saw that the registered manager spent time speaking with people who used the service and their relatives throughout the day during our visit.

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Staff were responsive to people’s cultural and religious needs. People were able to attend their places of worship and were supplied with culturally appropriate food.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

Inspection carried out on 31 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service. They told us they were happy with the care and support they received. They also told us their visitors were made welcome and they could choose how they spent their time. One person said "the staff are kind and honest" Another person said " I am happy here and get on well with the staff".

We saw that staff interacted with people who used the service in a positive and respectful way. Staff communicated effectively and demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of people's individual needs. People were occupied and engaged in activities that were meaningful to them.

People told us they liked the meals provided. We saw that where there was a risk of poor nutrition, people were supported to receive adequate nutrition and hydration.

Recruitment procedures were robust and pre employment checks were carried out. An on going progamme of quality assurance was in place and this included seeking the views of people who used the service.

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We did not speak with people who used the service as part of this review. Our inspection of 13 March 2012 found that recruitment procedures were not robust. The provider wrote to us and told us that they had changed their polices and procedures so that proper checks were undertaken to ensure that staff employed were fit and appropriately qualified and were physically and mentally able to do their job. We looked at these polices and saw that they were appropriate.

Inspection carried out on 10 July 2012

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us they liked the staff who cared for them. 'People said 'they always treat us in a respectful and kind way' People told us they were given choice and had their wishes and feelings taken into account.

Inspection carried out on 13 March 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us they were satisfied with the care and treatment they received. some people said they were bored and unoccupied for a lot of the time.

Inspection carried out on 21 February 2011 and 13 March 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that staff treated them with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity at all times. We observed staff interacting with people living at Hallaton Manor in a kind, helpful and respectful manner.

Relatives spoken with told us that communication between them and staff was good and they were appropriately involved in decisions about care, treatment and support. People told us they enjoyed the food provided, one person told us they did not but were hoping the new cook who had recently been employed would lead to improvements.

People told us they had access to all required healthcare services.

People told us that the home was kept clean and fresh.

People told us that staff managed their medication in a safe and efficient manner.

People told us that that staff were competent and did their jobs effectively and efficiently.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)