You are here

Archived: Hyde Valley House Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 May 2016

This inspection was carried out on 19 April 2016 and was unannounced. At their last inspection on 3 April 2014, they were found to be meeting the standards we inspected.

Hyde Valley House provides personal care and accommodation to up to 46 people. There were 45 people using the service on the day of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. In this instance the registered manager was also the provider.

People received care that met their needs and there were care plans available that enabled staff to provide care safely. People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff knew how to recognise and report concerns. Accidents and incidents were reviewed to help identify trends and mitigate risks.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff employed had undergone a robust recruitment process. Staff employed received regular training and felt supported to carry out their role.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and welfare. There was regular access to health and social care professionals.

There were mixed views about activities from people. However, there was an activity programme in place and we observed one to one activities taking place. People’s feedback was sought through meetings and surveys, we also found that complaints were responded to appropriately.

People, relatives and staff were positive about the management of the home. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and address any shortfalls. The ethos of the home was people first and we found them to be open and honest about the service that was provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who knew how to identify abuse and manage risks.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who were recruited safely.

People�s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was effective.

People�s consent was sought and the MCA adhered to.

People received appropriate support with eating and drinking.

People had access to health care professionals as needed

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was not consistently caring.

People�s dignity was not always promoted.

People were treated with kindness and respect.

People were involved in planning their care.

Confidentiality was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s care needs were met and care plans were clear.

People�s views on activities provided were mixed.

Complaints were responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was well led.

People were positive about the management team.

Lessons learned were shared with the staff team.

There were systems I place to monitor the quality of the service.