You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 November 2019

About the service

Hazeldene is a residential care home providing personal care to 10 people with a diagnosis of learning disabilities and associated health needs at the time of the inspection. The service can support a maximum of 10 people. It offers bedrooms and communal space over two buildings. One building is home to four people whose bedrooms are split over two floors. Two of the bedrooms are en-suite whilst the other two bedrooms share a bathroom. A communal lounge, open plan dining room and kitchen, and laundry room offer facilities to people in one of the buildings. The other building offers additional communal space with a day room, quiet room, separate dining room, lounge, laundry and communal bathrooms / kitchen catering to six people living across two floors. Each building offers a large garden that people are encouraged to utilise.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was designed so to ensure there were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported by a team of staff who were dedicated to meet their needs. The service had a number of audit tools in place to measure the effectiveness and safety of the service. We found that whilst most audits were completed, the registered manager had not always reviewed these. As a result some reviews had been missed. These did not put people at risk, nevertheless illustrated that the registered manager did not always have a full overview of the service. The provider developed systems following the inspection to overcome these shortfalls.

People were supported to receive safe care and treatment from a dedicated staff team. Risks were appropriately recorded and assessed highlighting when the risk was most likely to occur, and what action to take to prevent the risk from occurring. Details were also written on what action to take should the risk occur. These were reviewed regularly. Staff received training and had a thorough understanding of their duty of care to keep people safe from risk of harm and abuse. The Commission received reportable notifications in line with requirements.

We found that medicines were administered safely. Staff medication training and competencies were up to date. Required learning was identified from accidents and near misses, with a trigger analysis being completed as required by the provider.

People were involved in all aspects of their care, as far as possible. Staff were trained and supported to ensure they had the necessary knowledge and skills to safely and effectively deliver care. The service proactively worked in partnership with external agencies, utilising their knowledge and skill to further develop staff expertise, and determine correct support for people.

People enjoyed a positive relationship with staff which was built on trust, dignity and mutual respect. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and celebrate their uniqueness. People were supported to maximise their dream

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 November 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 November 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 19 November 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.