• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Highfield House Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

28 Clifton Road, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1DT (01335) 342273

Provided and run by:
Grandcross Limited

All Inspections

29 January & 04 February 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 29 January and the 04 February 2016. It was unannounced. The service was previously inspected on the 25 March 2014. At that inspection the provider was in breach of the Regulation in relation to the administration of medicines. Medicines were found to be administered appropriately at this inspection.

The service provides nursing care to 37 people. Most of the people using the service had complex needs these included people who were living with dementia and physical disabilities.

The service is required to have 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of this inspection there was no registered manager in the service.

At this inspection we found the registered person had not ensured people were supported by staff who understood the right of people to have their dignity and independence promoted. There was not enough staff to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. There were long delays in answering call bells.

The registered person’s arrangements to assess and monitor the quality and safety of services and to assess monitor and mitigate the risks relating to people’s health, safety and welfare were not always operated effectively. The provider did not have an effective quality assurance system in place that identified and addressed shortfalls in the service. The provider had identified some shortfalls but had not addressed them in a timely manner.

The provider did not ensure people received a service that was designed to meet their individual needs and wishes in relation to how they wished to live. People were not offered the opportunity to pursue hobbies and interests. This led to people becoming bored and unstimulated.

Most of the staff understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. However, none of the staff we spoke with understood the implications for people who were living under different sections of the Mental Health Act 1983.

People were given the opportunity to plan their meals and had a choice of nutritious food and drink throughout the day. Most people were happy with the food. People’s medicines were administered safely and people were supported to access other healthcare professionals to maintain their physical health and well-being. We saw that there were thorough recruitment processes in place and these were applied before staff started to work with people. Visitors were welcomed to the home at all times.

We identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration Requirements) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

25 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with six people who used the service and one relative. People told us they were satisfied with the care they received, and felt that their needs were being met. They also said that they liked the staff that supported them, as they were respectful and caring.

Most shifts were covered by agency nurses following recent staff changes. The same agency workers covered the shifts where possible, until further nurses were recruited. This meant that people usually received consistent care, from regular staff that were aware of their needs.

Staff received essential information about people's needs to enable them to provide appropriate care. People received care and treatment that met their needs. However, some people did not receive their medicines at the times they needed them to have the required effect, as they received them too close together. The newly appointed manager agreed to address this issue.

People's care records generally detailed the care and treatment they required to meet their needs, including measures in place to minimise risks and keep them safe.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service, and to manage risks relating to people's welfare and safety. The manager was making essential changes to ensure that the service was well managed, and that people received appropriate care and treatment.

12, 13 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with ten people who used the service and six relatives.

People we spoke with who were able to express their views said that they were happy with the care and support they received, and felt that their needs were being met. Comments received from people included ' the staff are darlings; whatever I ask they will do, the staff team are very good; they really care, we are well looked after although I feel that more staff are needed at times.''

Relatives told us they were generally happy with the care their family member received. Three relatives also said that they felt that more staff were needed at times to meet people's' needs.

We found that people generally received safe and appropriate care and treatment, although aspects of the care and treatment was not delivered effectively to meet their needs and ensure their welfare.

The service provided a range of equipment to meet people's needs. The equipment was used correctly and was appropriately maintained.

People told us they liked the staff that supported them as they were honest and reliable, and they understood their needs. We found that effective recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that staff employed were suitable to carry out the work.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to assess and manage risks, although a lapse in the internal monitoring systems did not protect people against the risks of inappropriate care and treatment.

28 September 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not speak with people using the service during this visit.

At our previous visit on 29 May 2012 people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and support they received. People said that they received the help they needed as there was usually enough staff on duty.

29 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke to 13 people who use the service and four relatives.

People able to express their views said they were happy with the care and support they received, and felt that they received the help they needed as there were usually enough staff on duty.

One person told us '' I'm well looked after and the staff are friendly and helpful'. Another person told us ' I can't fault the care I receive; the staff are caring and good at their job'.

People felt safe and able to raise concerns with staff if they were unhappy.

People felt that staff usually respected their dignity, privacy and independence. Relatives shared this view.

Relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and support their family member received, and felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment. One relative said 'the service provides personal care and treats people with respect'. Another relative said 'I have good relationships with staff and they inform me of any changes in my family member's care'.

21 April 2011 and 23 September 2012

During a routine inspection

All comments we received relating to the care, support and services were very positive. People considered that the daily routines are flexible and take into account their wishes and preferences. People felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment. They felt able to raise concerns.

People enjoyed the choice and the variety of meals they received.

People considered that standards of cleanliness throughout the home are very good.

People told us that the premises were clean, comfortable and safe, although areas required decorating and improvements.

People praised the staff and described them as ''caring and good at their job''. People considered there was generally enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.

People told us 'they were very happy with the service. They felt listened to and had a say in how the home is run'. Relatives felt that the service is well managed, and had confidence in the staff team to run things properly.