The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Himley Mill Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

School Road, Himley, Dudley, West Midlands, DY3 4LG (01902) 324021

Provided and run by:
Bupa Care Homes (CFHCare) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

To Be Confirmed

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service on 16 December 2015 and it was unannounced. At our last inspection in November 2014 compliance actions were issued as we identified that improvements were needed regarding consent to care and treatment. The provider sent us a report in February 2015 explaining the actions they would take to improve. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made since our last visit.

The service was registered to provide nursing care for up 86 people. The service is split in to three separate units Beech, Kingswood and Woodlands. At the time of our inspection 79 people were using the service.

There was a new manager in post who is in the process of registering with us. 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.

The provider did not always provide personalised care that met people’s preferences. When people had cultural needs the provider did not demonstrate this as part of their assessment. Some systems that were in place did not ensure that when people’s care needs had been assessed they received it as they should.

People told us they felt safe and staff were able to recognise and report potential abuse. Risks were managed in a way to keep people safe. There were safe systems in place to manage medicines. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. Staff received training and induction which supported them to have the skills to meet people’s needs.

When people were unable to consent mental capacity assessments had been completed and decisions were made in people’s best interests. The provider had considered when people were being unlawfully restricted and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) applications were in place. Staff knew their role and how to protect people with this.

People told us they enjoyed the food and were offered a healthy balanced diet. People and families told us they were involved with reviewing their care and when needed people were referred to relevant healthcare professionals.

People’s privacy and dignity was promoted and they were treated in a kind and caring way. People were encouraged to be independent and make choices about their day. Families told us they were free to visit throughout the day.

Staff felt listened to and were given the opportunity to raise concerns and suggest improvements. The provider used feedback from people, staff and relatives to bring about improvements to the service.

11 November 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 11 November 2014 and was unannounced.

At our previous inspection on 19 May 2014 we found that the provider did not ensure that people consented to their care, treatment and support, that planned care was not always delivered, there were insufficient staff to meet the needs of people who used the service and the systems to monitor the quality of the service were ineffective. We had issued compliance actions and had begun enforcement action and issued a warning notice.

We found at this inspection that the provider had made improvements in the care delivery, staffing levels and quality monitoring systems. However there continued to be concerns that people were not being involved in the decision making about their care and welfare. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Himley Mill is a registered nursing home which has three separate units (Woodlands, Beech and Kingswood). Each unit accommodates approximately 30 people who may require nursing care. At the time of the inspection 70 people were using the service.

There was a new manager in post and they were in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

The provider did not follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and ensure that people had consented to their care, treatment and support. People were not supported to make decisions for themselves.

Staff knew what constituted abuse and reported it appropriately through the provider’s and local authority safeguarding procedures.

Recruitment processes were robust and ensured that prospective staff were fit to work.

Medicines were stored and managed safely. People had their medication at the prescribed times.

Staff had received training and supervision to ensure they were effective in their roles. New staff had a period of induction to ensure they were competent.

People had a healthy choice of food. When people required more support to meet their nutritional needs, plans were put in place to monitor and ensure that people received adequate food and fluids.

People’s health care needs were met. Records showed that people were supported to see a health care professional when they became unwell or their needs changed.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Interactions between staff and people were kind and compassionate.

There was a complaints procedure and the provider responded appropriately when people complained about the service.

The new manager was implementing systems to improve the service to people. Staff told us that the management was approachable and had a ‘hands on’ approach.

We found areas for improvement in how the provider responds to people’s individual needs. Some people did not benefit from care that was personal to them.

22 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We visited Himley Mill on a planned, unannounced inspection which meant the service did not know we were coming. We were supported by a specialist advisor; we spoke with people who used the service, their relatives and the staff that supported them.

We considered our inspection findings to answer the questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

We had concerns that people did not always receive safe, appropriate care at the right times.

There were insufficient staff to meet all the needs of people who used the service in a timely manner.

The service followed the correct procedures in the reporting of safeguarding issues and investigations took place, but recommendations were not always followed to keep people safe from acts of omission.

Is the service effective?

Care was regularly reviewed but people who used the service or their relative were not always involved in their care planning.

The service gained the support from other health agencies when a person's need changed.

Is the service caring?

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Relatives we spoke to told us they were generally happy with the care the service provided. One relative told us: 'It's fantastic, I am very happy with it'.

Is the service responsive?

The service had a complaints procedure and people knew who to complain to.

When people became unwell staff sought the appropriate external support. One person who used the service told us: 'They always send a member of staff with you when you have to go to hospital'.

Is the service well led?

The service had implemented several audit tools to monitor the quality of the service but they were not always effective.

People who used the service and their relatives were invited to attend meetings to discuss and make suggestions as to how to improve the service.

3 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected Himley Mill on a follow up inspection following concerns from our previous inspection. The inspection was unannounced which meant the service did not know we were coming.

At our previous inspection in April 2013 we had concerns that people that used the service were not involved in their care planning and that their care and welfare needs were not being met. We had asked the provider to take action to ensure the essential standards of quality and safety were being met. The service had been providing CQC with regular weekly action plans of planned actions and actions taken to improve the standards of care for people who used the service.

We looked to see if people were being involved in their care planning and how the service was being delivered. We found that improvements had been made in this area.

We spoke to one person who used the service who had concerns over their care, treatment and support at our previous inspection. They informed us that: "Things are much better now".

We looked to see if the care and welfare needs of people were being met and found that improvements had been made in this area. Steps had been taken to ensure that people were receiving appropriate care, treatment and support that met their needs.

On this inspection we found that Himley Mill was compliant in the two outcome areas we inspected.

25 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected Himley Mill on a planned unannounced inspection which meant the service did not know we were coming. Himley Mill is divided into three units which all accommodate approximately 30 people.

We had previously inspected Himley Mill in November 2012 and had concerns that people who used the service were not being involved in their care, treatment and support and that people's care and welfare needs were not always being met. At this inspection we found that although a new relief manager was in place and they had implemented new systems to support people in these areas, we had further concerns.

We checked to see if the equipment being used to support people in the service was safe. We found that the service had systems in place to ensure equipment was maintained and suitable for its purpose.

We looked to see if Himley Mill followed the correct recruitment procedures in order to ensure that people employed at the service met the expected criteria. We found the service operated effective recruitment procedures.

We looked to see if the service had an effective complaints procedure and that people who used the service knew how to use it. We found that the service did have a complaints procedure and people we spoke with told us they knew who to make a complaint to if necessary.

22 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited Himley Mill Nursing Home on a planned unannounced inspection which meant the service did not know we were coming.

People who used the service said they were happy at Himley Mill but would like more choice in what happened within their home. We found concerns over the level of involvement people who used the service had in their care planning.

Relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the care their relative received and said they were always made to feel welcome to visit.

Staff we spoke with told us they were happy working at Himley Mill and that they felt supported by their managers and received lots of training to complete their role competently.

We saw that the service had a safeguarding policy and the staff and managers demonstrated knowledge of when they should make safeguarding referrals.

The service had implemented quality audits to monitor the quality of the service that it delivered.

Some people who used the service were being treated for pressure sores due to poor mobility. We had previously had concerns over the care and welfare of people who used the service and we found further concerns at this inspection.

28 February 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out this review to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. We visited Himley Mill Nursing Home in order to up date the information we hold and to establish that the needs of people using the service were being met. The visit was unannounced which meant the provider and the staff did not know we were coming.

Himley Mill Nursing Home has three separate units. Woodlands House, which provides nursing care for the frail elderly and accommodated up to 30 people. Kingswood House offers care for up to 25 younger physically disabled people and Beech House which has accommodation for 30 people with dementia and associated illnesses.

During the visit we spoke with people who lived at Himley Mill, staff members, and the manager. Following the visit we also spoke with two health professional who visited the service. A staff member said, 'We are able to meet people's needs and there is flexibility, we take on new ideas'. One person living at the home told us, 'It's alright here, they look after you, and the staff are pleasant'. Another person told us, 'Apart from home this is the best place I have been. The food is extremely good, I would recommend it. Staff are pretty good, some better than others but they are all good'.

There had been recent redevelopment of the service. A relative we spoke with said, 'They (the service) have managed marvellously during the renovation'. The manager told us that people who use the service had been encouraged to contribute to the d'cor by choosing colour schemes and furniture for their bedrooms.

We looked at plans of care for four people and found that they held information about each person and the care they required. Some of the plans were difficult to follow with the latest information not easily available. There were completed risk assessments but some documentation did not give sufficient detail to ensure safely and appropriate care delivery. For example, when someone was unable to use a call bell there was no information to explain how their needs would be met.

We involve people who use services and family carers to help us improve the way we inspect and write our inspection reports. Because of their unique knowledge and experience of using social care services, we have called them experts by experience. Our experts by experience are people of all ages, from diverse cultural backgrounds who have used a range of social care services.

An expert by experience took part in this inspection and talked to the people who used the service. They looked at what happened around the home and saw how everyone was getting on together and what the home felt like. They took some notes and wrote a report about what they found and details are included in this report.