Archived: Highfield Manor Care Home

Updated 20 September 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on the 31 August 2017 and was unannounced. It was conducted by one adult social care inspector.

We reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.

We did not ask for a provider information return (PIR) because we arranged this inspection at short notice. We used information from whistle blowers and other anonymous people who had shared their experience with us.

During the inspection we spoke with five members of staff, the manager and area manager. We looked at a range of records including accidents and incidents, safeguarding referrals, maintenance records, medicines records, staffing rotas, staff meetings and audits.

Updated 20 September 2017

Highfield Manor Care Home is a large detached house situated close to the centre of Heywood. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 38 older people. The home is close to public transport and local amenities. There is also ample car parking to the front of the home. At the time of our inspection there were 28 people living in the home.

We had previously inspected this service in February 2015 when we found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This resulted in us making six requirement actions. The service sent us an action plan telling us the action they intended to take to ensure they met all the regulations. They informed us they would be compliant with these by June 2015.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 12 and 13 May 2016 to check the required improvements had been made and to follow up on what action had been taken to address the requirement actions. We found the requirement actions had been complied with and significant improvements had been made.

Since our last inspection improvements had been made in the way medicines were managed to ensure people received their medicines safely. We saw medicines management policies and procedures were in place to guide staff on the storage and administration of medicines. We found that records were completed fully and protocols were in place to guide staff on administration of “as required” medicines.

Arrangements were in place to ensure people’s rights and choices were protected when they were unable to consent to their care and treatment in the service. Staff had received training in, and understood, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was working within the principles of the MCA.

Care records were detailed, person centred and contained good information about people’s support needs, preferences and routines. Care records were reviewed regularly. People who used the service and their relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing the care provided.

The was a complaints procedure for people to use if they wanted to raise any concerns about the care and support they received. There was a system in place to record complaints and the service responses to them. People were confident that they would be listened to and action would be taken to resolve any problems they had.

Improvements had been made in how the quality of the service was monitored. There was a robust system of weekly, monthly and annual quality monitoring and auditing in place. We found these audits included; medication, accident and incidents, falls, cleaning, building maintenance, care plans and risk assessments, staff training, complaints and safeguarding.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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. People were complimentary about the registered manager and said they were a good manager. We found them to be enthusiastic and committed to providing person centred care.

People we spoke with were positive about the registered manager, staff and the service.

People told us they felt safe at Highfield Manor Care Home. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Staff were able to tell us how to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. They were also aware of the responsibility to ‘whistle blow’ on colleagues who they thought might be delivering poor care to people.

There was a robust and safe system of recruitment in place to help to ensure people using the service were protected from unsuitable staff. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to be able to deliver effective care.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were identified and direction was given to staff on how to reduce or eliminate those risks.

People had access to a balanced diet; food we saw was nutritious, plentiful and well presented. We saw systems were in place to monitor people’s nutritional needs. People had access to a range of health care professional to ensure their health needs were met.

The staff and managers knew people very well. They spoke fondly about people who used the service. We saw staff provided support in a caring, patient and unhurried way. They took time to listen and respond to people.

The service placed great importance on promoting people’s independence and choice. Care records contained information on what people could do for themselves.

We saw that the service had a range of policies and procedures to help guide staff on good practice. Staff told us they felt supported and enjoyed working for the service.