We carried out a review of the data available to us about Neath Hill Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Neath Hill Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Safe arrangements were in place for visitors to the service including relatives and friends, professionals and others. This included a booking system, rapid LFD testing, showing evidence of vaccination, temperature checks and sign in process.
Isolation, co-horting and zoning were used to manage the risk of infection spread. This meant people self-isolated in their rooms when necessary and staff were allocated to work in certain areas of the service should anyone test positive for COVID-19.
Enhanced cleaning and disinfection of all areas of the service continued to take place to reduce the risk of cross contamination.
There was plenty of personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser available. PPE stations were located around the service. Used PPE was disposed of safely in clinical bins.
A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people who lived in the service. This meant swift action could be taken if anyone received a positive test result.
There were no agency staff working in the service which meant fewer staff coming in and out of the building. This helped keep people safe. The staff team worked together to cover any gaps in the rota.
The registered manager had good oversight of infection prevention and control processes. They undertook regular quality assurance checks. Policies and procedures were in place and up to date, which supported good practice in all areas of infection prevention and control.
Neath Hill Care Home is a residential care home that can provide personal care for up to 47 people some of whom have dementia care needs. At the time of the inspection, 44 people were living at the service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People continued to receive safe care, and staff we spoke with understood safeguarding procedures and how to raise concerns.
Risk assessments were in place to manage risks within people’s lives.
Staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out.
Medicines were stored and administered safely.
Staffing support matched the level of assessed needs within the service during our inspection.
Staff were trained to support people effectively.
Staff were supervised well and felt confident in their roles.
People told us they enjoyed the food prepared for them, and food and fluid intake was monitored as required.
People’s health care needs were met, and they had access to health professionals as required.
People's consent was gained before any care was provided, and they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them.
People were supported in the least restrictive way possible.
Care plans reflected people likes, dislikes and preferences.
An activities programme was in place. Some people felt this could be improved upon to add more activities during the weekend.
People and their family were involved in their own care planning as much as was possible.
A complaints system was in place and was used effectively.
The manager was open and honest, and worked in partnership with outside agencies to improve people’s support when required
Audits of the service were detailed and any issues found were addressed promptly.
The service had a registered manager in place, and staff felt well supported by them.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 01/03/2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People felt safe living at the service and staff were knowledgeable about the safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures that were in place to protect people from harm. Risk assessments were in place to promote people’s safety, which were regularly reviewed. The service’s recruitment process ensured that sufficient and suitable staff were employed to care for people safely. Systems were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.
Staff were provided with suitable support and training to care for people appropriately. People’s consent was gained before assisting them with care and support. A variety of food choices and snacks were available to ensure people received a balanced diet. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare facilities.
Positive and caring relationships had been developed with people using the service and staff. People were made to feel that they mattered. People were supported to worship according to their faith. Meetings were held regularly to enable people to make decisions about their care and support needs. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. People were addressed by their preferred names and given the option to spend time alone in private or socialise within the communal areas. Relatives were able to visit without being unnecessarily restricted.
Assessments of needs were undertaken on admission to the service. The care provided was personalised and reflected people’s individuality. People were supported to follow their interests and hobbies. A varied activity programme was in place, which enabled people to participate in activities if they wished to avoid social isolation. Complaints were managed appropriately in line with the provider’s own complaints policy.
The culture at the service was positive and inclusive. People using the service, relatives and staff had confidence in the registered manager. Established quality assurance systems were in place and used to drive continuous improvement.
The inspection was carried out on 11 December 2014 and was unannounced.
Neath House Care Centre provides personal care and accommodation for up to 47 older people living with dementia. On the day of our visit, there were 47 people living in the home.
The service has a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were protected from abuse and felt safe at the service. Staff were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and reporting procedures. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment practices were followed and there were systems in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.
We found staff were provided with induction and formal training. There was a supervision and appraisal framework in place to support staff to carry out their roles effectively. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] applications had been made to ensure any restrictions of their liberty were undertaken in their best interests. Staff supported people to eat and drink and to maintain a balanced diet. People had access to healthcare facilities.
People said they received excellent care from staff and staff were kind and compassionate. There were processes in place to make sure people were listened to and were involved in their care. Staff ensured that people’s privacy and dignity were promoted.
People’s needs were assessed prior to them coming to live at the service. Staff ensured that people were involved in the development of their care plan. Lessons were learnt from complaints and they were used to make improvements to the delivery of care.
The registered manager promoted a culture that was positive, open and inclusive. There was strong leadership which inspired staff to provide a quality service. There were a range of systems in place to continuously assess and monitor the quality of the service provision.
We saw that staff were knowledgeable about the care needs of people that used the service, and we found that induction for new staff was very good.
We saw that Neath Hill Care Centre had been thoughtfully decorated to provide a stimulating environment for people.
We spoke to relatives of people who used the service and they told us that 'it is such a relief to leave her where she is happy'. Another relative said that 'We are very pleased with the care provided at Neath Hill'.
People confirmed they had access to activities, but would like to see an increase in the variety of activities offered at the home.