You are here

We have removed an inspection report for The Hawthorns from 11 December 2018. The removal of the report is not related to the provider or the quality of this service. We found an issue with some of the information gathered by an individual who supported our inspection. We will reinspect this service as soon as possible and publish a new inspection report.
We are carrying out a review of quality at The Hawthorns. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

This inspection took place on 9 and 10 May 2016 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

The Hawthorns was last inspected by CQC on 3 February 2014 and was compliant with the regulations in force at the time.

The Hawthorns is located in a residential setting in Peterlee in County Durham. It provides accommodation with personal care for up to 98 people within three different categories of care, neurological rehabilitation (34 beds), dementia care (Seaham House, 27 beds) and general nursing (37 beds). On the day of our inspection there were 94 people using the service.

We saw that entry to the premises was controlled by key-pad entry but was generally open during the day. All visitors were required to sign in. This meant the provider had appropriate security measures in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service.

The home comprised of 98 bedrooms, the majority of which had en-suite bathrooms. Facilities included several lounges and dining rooms, communal bathrooms, shower rooms and toilets, a hairdressing room, sensory room, treatment room, a gym and several communal gardens. The general reception was large and spacious with a comfortable seated area which provided people who used the service and visitors with tea/coffee facilities and a computer with internet access.

People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the standard of care at The Hawthorns. We saw staff supporting and helping to maintain people’s independence. People were encouraged to care for themselves where possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people using the service.

Training records were up to date and staff received supervisions and appraisals, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home and was suitably designed for people with dementia type conditions.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met.

All the care records we looked at contained evidence of consent.

People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people at meal times when required.

People who used the service had access to a range of activities in the home.

All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed. Care plans and risk assessments were in place when required and daily records were up to date. Care plans were written in a person centred way and regularly reviewed.

We saw staff used a range of assessment tools and kept clear records about how care was to be delivered and people who used the service had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support.

The registered provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and complaints were fully investigated.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was safe.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff.

Staff had completed training in safeguarding of vulnerable adults and knew the different types of abuse and how to report concerns. Thorough investigations had been carried out in response to safeguarding incidents or allegations.

The provider had procedures in place for managing the maintenance of the premises.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service through a range of mandatory and specialised training and supervision and appraisal.

People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people when required.

The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home and was suitably designed for people with dementia type conditions.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and the staff understood how to provide care in a dignified manner and respected people�s right to privacy.

The staff knew the care and support needs of people well and took an interest in people and their relatives to provide individual personal care.

People who used the service and their relatives were involved in developing and reviewing care plans and assessments.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was responsive.

Care records were person-centred and reflective of people�s needs.

People who used the service had access to a range of activities in the home.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place and people told us they knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was well-led.

The provider had a quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt able to approach the manager and felt safe to report concerns.

The service had policies and procedures in place that took into account guidance and best practice from expert and professional bodies and provided staff with clear instructions.