You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 November 2018

Hazell Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Hazell Court accommodates up to 55 people, some living with dementia. In the main building of Hazell Court people did not require nursing care. In the rehabilitation unit people received nursing care. The rehabilitation unit was commissioned from the NHS, the service worked with West Suffolk Hospital, people used the rehabilitation unit after a stay in hospital and were supported to move home.

During our comprehensive inspection on 16 and 17 October 2018, there were 41 people living in the main service and 12 people in the rehabilitation unit, 53 overall.

At our previous inspection of 20 October 2016, this service was rated Good overall. However, safe was rated requires improvement, this was because there were some improvements being made relating to how the service recorded when people received their medicines, which had not yet been fully implemented. At this inspection of 16 and 17 October 2018 we found improvements had been made in safe. We found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good overall. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. We found that people were provided with a very caring service and caring is now rated as outstanding.

Improvements had been made in safe and people received a safe service. There were systems in place designed to reduce the risks of abuse and avoidable harm. Where incidents had happened, the service learned from these and used the learning to drive improvement. Risks to people continued to be managed well. People were supported with their medicines in a safe way. Staff were available to support people and the systems to recruit staff safely were robust. There were infection control procedures in place which reduced the risks of cross contamination.

People continued to receive an effective service. People were supported by staff who were trained and supported to meet their needs. People had access to health professionals when needed. Staff worked with other professionals involved in people’s care. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The environment was well maintained and suitable for the people using the service.

Without exception, people were provided with an exceptionally caring service. People's diversity was respected and all people were treated equally regardless of their specific needs. People shared very positive relationships with staff. Staff interacted with people in an extremely compassionate and caring way which had a positive impact on people’s wellbeing. People’s privacy, independence and dignity was respected. People were listened to in relation to their choices, and they and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in their care planning. Staff knew people well and their care was tailor made to meet their preferences. People were valued and the service provided showed people that they mattered.

People continued to receive a responsive service. There were systems in place to assess, plan and meet people’s individual needs and preferences. People had access to social activities to reduce the risks of isolation and boredom. There was a complaints procedure in place and people’s complaints were addressed. People’s end of life decisions were documented to reduce the risks of people’s preferences about how they wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives not being met.

People continued to receive a service which was well-led. The registered manager had a programme of audits which demonstrated that they assessed and monitored the

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 November 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed and mitigated. This included risks in the environment and in their daily living and risks associated with abuse.

There were systems in place to manage people�s medicines safely.

The staffing levels were assessed to provide people with the care and support they needed. Recruitment of staff was done safely.

The service had infection control policies and procedures which were designed to reduce risks to people.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 November 2018

The service remained good.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 30 November 2018

The service was extremely caring.

People received care which demonstrated to them that they mattered and were valued. Without exception people and relatives told us that the staff were very caring and compassionate.

People's diversity was respected, as was their independence and privacy.

People�s choices about how they wanted to be cared for were valued and acted on.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 November 2018

The service remained good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 November 2018

The service remained good.