You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 April 2018

This inspection took place on 27 March 2018 and was unannounced. Hyde Lea is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 18 people living with dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 16 people living at the home. The home is a large detached property set in its own grounds. The main house has kept some of the original features which add character to the building. An extension has been added to the rear of the home. There is a passenger lift to the first floor. An enclosed garden area is situated at the rear of the home and is easily accessible by ramped access. Car parking is available in the grounds at the front of the home. The home is close to local amenities, including a park and supermarket.

Hyde Lea is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection in March 2016, we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the service had continued to develop and strengthen a caring approach and the effectiveness and leadership of the home. People continued to receive a high standard of care.

Hyde Lea was well-led. The registered manager was supported by the provider and by a conscientious staff team who took in to account individuals wishes so each person was valued and treated equally.

Staff knew about people and what was important to them and significant events in their lives. They focused on each person rather than labelling them with them with a diagnosis or condition.

The home had sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and preferences. Staff were recruited after the provider and the registered manager had completed necessary checks to make sure they were suitable to work at the home. Staff understood their responsibilities to raise any concerns through safeguarding procedures.

The management team were proactive in driving the service forward to improve outcomes for people who used the service and their relatives. They worked in partnership with other key organisations.

Care plans provided staff with information about risks to people’s health and wellbeing. Risk assessments took into account people individual’s needs and abilities and encouraged people to maintain independence where possible.

We saw that medicines were stored safety and administered in a timely manner and as prescribed.

People were supported by staff who understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They gave people maximum choice and involved them in decisions about their care. Staff provided care in the least restrictive way possible.

People were supported to take part in activities, some being group activities or one to one sessions.

Residents’ and relatives’ meetings, where people could raise concerns and put forward suggestions, were held regularly. The registered manager held a ‘manager’s surgery’ on the first Monday of every month to meet with families.

Systems were in place to monitor and assess the quality of the care provided. Where improvements were needed, plans were in place to achieve these to ensure the people continued to receive high standards of care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 April 2018

The service was safe.

People living at the home were not able to tell us if they felt safe. However their body language and smiles were comfortable when staff approached them.

Medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

There were good staffing levels, which were flexible and responded to people�s needs. Staff were safely recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 April 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were met by staff who had undertaken regular training.

People had access to healthcare services when they needed them. Management and staff worked closely with other healthcare professionals.

People�s nutritional and hydration needs were met and kept closely under review.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 28 April 2018

The service was caring.

The experience, maturity and caring approach of all the staff was commendable. Staff were kind, caring and respectful. Staff gave people their time and treated each person as they were special and important.

We observed that staff had great respect for people�s privacy and dignity.

Relatives told us they felt communication within the home was excellent, they were kept informed and felt involved.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care records contained detailed information to guide staff on the care and support required.

People were supported to make choices about how they wished to spend their day. There was a wide and varied range of activities planned.

Arrangements were in place for reporting and responding to any complaints or concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 April 2018

The service was well led.

The culture at the home was supportive of people who lived at Hyde Lea and of the staff.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were encouraged to develop professionally.

Quality assurance systems were in place and the team were proactive in seeking ways to improve.