You are here

Archived: Hyde Valley House Good

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

Reports


Inspection carried out on 19 April 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 3 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

- Is the service caring?

- Is the service responsive?

- Is the service safe?

- Is the service effective?

- Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found

Is the service caring?

We observed during our inspection that people were treated with respect and saw that people had detailed care plans which were developed with the involvement of the people using the service and their relatives.

People told us �I�m healthy and well, they (staff) look after me� and that they had no complaints at all. They also said that there were activities provided in the home and staff also helped them to go out to shops and support them to attend religious establishments.

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

Is the service responsive?

We observed during our inspection that people were treated kindly and with patience. It was also apparent from talking with the staff and from observation that staff had made effort to get to know people who used the service in order to provide them personalised support.

We found that the service responded promptly and addressed maintenance issues and complaints.

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, suitably designed and adequately maintained. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and here were adequate arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We also found that the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted we saw that the manager had been informed by the provider about recent changes in how the legislation is to be applied due to a recent court decision. The manager had plans to review whether applications should be made in light of the change.

Is the service effective?

We found that people�s needs were identified and their care was planned in a way to meet their assessed needs. The care plans were available and were reviewed on a regular basis. People�s health was monitored and they received medical attention when it was needed. They were involved in a range of activities both in the home and in the community.

Is the service well led?

We also found that there was a system in place to monitor the service to ensure people�s well-being and that the quality of the service was adequate. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and that they felt confident about their job. We found that the service worked in partnership with people�s GP and district nurses in order to ensure people�s health and well-being.

Inspection carried out on 25 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection of Hyde Valley House on 25 September 2013, we saw that staff had made every effort to identify and act on the wishes of people who lived there. One person told us, �I am not told what to do. They [staff] let me decide. I can choose what I want to do.�

Care plans we looked at showed that people�s needs and preferences had been assessed, documented and reviewed. A relative told us, �They [staff] look after [name] wonderfully well. I cannot speak highly enough of Hyde Valley House and the staff.�

We saw evidence that people were provided with a good choice of food and drink in a way that both encouraged and promoted a healthy balanced diet. One person said, �The food is very good.�

Records showed that the provider had put effective recruitment procedures in place to ensure that staff were fit, able and properly trained to meet the needs of people who used the service. This included carrying out appropriate checks before staff began work.

We saw that a complaints policy and procedure had been put in place and that people�s comments, feedback and suggestions were regularly sought.

Inspection carried out on 4 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We saw staff interacting with people used the service, listening to them and responding to them in a polite and courteous way, ensuring that they given time to ask questions and respond at their own pace. We also saw that staff supported and gently encouraged people to eat and drink at their own pace. One person who used the service said "The food was good, especially the bacon and eggs and we get lots of choices."

People�s needs were assessed and peoples likes and dislikes were identified including, the time they like to get up and go to bed, what they like to eat and drink, what hobbies they had and or have now. People had life history stories that were corroborated with friends and relatives of the people who used the service.

Staff we spoke to told us that they received regular supervision, one person said "The senior staff are approachable and very supportive. We saw that staff received regular training and updates.

We saw the provider regularly assesses and monitors the quality of the service provided to protect people who used the service from the risk of inappropriate or unsafe care and treatment. Monthly audits are carried out reviewing the key areas such as care plans, risk asessment, medication, accidents, incidents, compliments and complaints, fire safety and the building environment. Any areas for improvement are identified and the appropriate action to address any concerns and identify areas of good practice.

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