You are here

Archived: Hovenden - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 January 2015

People and their relatives were very happy with the service. In addition, our own observations and the records we looked at supported this view. People were cared for safely. Staff were able to tell us about how to keep people safe. The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity act (2005) (MCA) and deprivation of liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provisions of the MCA are used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own about the care or treatment they received. This includes decisions about depriving people of their liberty so that they get the care and treatment they need where there is no less restrictive way of achieving this. If the location is a care home CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS, and to report on what we find. At the time of our inspection there was one person who was subject to DoLS.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered to meet those needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals such as a dietician and a chiropodist.

People were supported to eat enough to keep them healthy. People had access to a range of snacks and drinks during the day and had choices at mealtimes. Where people had special dietary requirements we saw that these were provided for.

We looked at records of fluid intake and found there were gaps in the completion of the record which could put people at risk of not having sufficient fluids. We also found gaps in the records which recorded when people were weighed. This meant there was not a complete record for staff to use to monitor changes in people’s health.

People had their privacy and dignity were respected and made positive comments about staff. We saw that care took into account people’s preferences and that staff obtained people’s consent before providing care.

Staff were provided with both internal and external training on a variety of subjects to ensure that they had the skills to meet people’s needs. Staff knew how to raise concerns. We found people and relatives were clear about the process for raising concerns and were confident that they had a voice in the running of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 January 2015

The service was safe.

When we spoke with staff they knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly.

Where there were risks to people’s safety these were appropriately assessed and managed.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Effective

Good

Updated 28 January 2015

The service was effective.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people had access to healthcare services and receive ongoing support if required. We found that there were gaps in some records.

Staff had access to appraisals and felt supported in their role to provide effective care to people.

People enjoyed the care home’s food and had a choice about what and where to eat. Plans were in place to ensure that people’s nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 January 2015

The service was caring.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People were positive about the care they received and we saw they were involved in decisions about their care on a day to day basis.

People’s end of life care was recorded and staff followed the agreed plan.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 January 2015

The service was responsive.

People were able to make everyday choices and during our visit we observed this happening.

Activities were available throughout the day and we observed people being supported to participate in these.

We observed occasions when the service changed their practice in response to people’s needs and requests.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 January 2015

The service was well led and systems were in place for monitoring quality.

Relatives and people who lived at the home felt able to raise concerns and processes were in place to manage any concerns raised.

The systems that the manager had put in place for monitoring quality were effective.