You are here

Archived: The Harefield Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The inspection took place on 15 March 2016 and was unannounced.

The last inspection of the service was on 1 September 2015 when we found breaches in five Regulations relating to person centred care, privacy and dignity, staffing, consent and good governance.

The Harefield Nursing Centre is a care home with nursing for up to 40 older people. At the time of our inspection 33 people were living at the home. Some people living at the home were living with dementia. The home was run and managed by Bupa Care Homes (ANS) Limited. There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Although the provider had reassessed and improved the staffing levels and deployment at the service, there were times when people’s needs were not being met and they were placed at risk because there were not enough staff deployed to support them.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The environment was well maintained and clean.

There were appropriate procedures for safeguarding people.

People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed.

The provider’s recruitment checks were designed to ensure the staff were suitable to work at the service.

People’s capacity to consent had been assessed and the staff made sure people consented to their care as it was offered. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions the provider had acted in the person’s best interest and had consulted with those who were important to the person.

The staff received the training, supervision and support they needed to care for people safely and meet their needs.

People’s nutritional needs were met.

The staff worked with other healthcare professionals to make sure people’s healthcare needs were met.

People told us they had positive relationships with the staff. The staff were kind, caring and respected people’s privacy. However, some people felt that there were long periods of time when they did not have sustained or meaningful interactions.

People’s care needs were met in a way people wanted. Although some of their preferences and personal wishes were not recorded in care plans.

People had access to a range of organised activities, but some people wanted more opportunities for things to do.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure and the provider responded to complaints.

People living at the service, staff and visitors found the manager approachable and felt the service was well managed.

There had been improvements to the service and the manager had a plan for on going and continuous improvements.

Records were well maintained, accurate and up to date.

There were a number of different audits and checks which enabled the manager and staff to monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 14 April 2016

Some aspects of the service were not safe.

Although the provider had reassessed and improved the staffing levels and deployment at the service, there were times when people�s needs were not being met and they were placed at risk because there were not enough staff deployed to support them.

The environment was well maintained and clean.

There were appropriate procedures for safeguarding people.

People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed.

The provider�s recruitment checks were designed to ensure the staff were suitable to work at the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The service was effective.

People�s capacity to consent had been assessed and the staff made sure people consented to their care as it was offered. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions the provider had acted in the person�s best interest and had consulted with those who were important to the person.

The staff received the training, supervision and support they needed to care for people safely and meet their needs.

People�s nutritional needs were met.

The staff worked with other healthcare professionals to make sure people�s healthcare needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The service was caring.

People told us they had positive relationships with the staff. The staff were kind, caring and respected people�s privacy. However, some people felt that there were long periods of time when they did not have sustained or meaningful interactions.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s care needs were met in a way people wanted. Although some of their preferences and personal wishes were not recorded in care plans.

People had access to a range of organised activities, but some people wanted more opportunities for things to do.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure and the provider responded to complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The service was well-led.

People living at the service, staff and visitors found the manager approachable and felt the service was well managed.

There had been improvements to the service and the manager had a plan for on going and continuous improvements.

Records were well maintained, accurate and up to date.

There were a number of different audits and checks which enabled the manager and staff to monitor the quality of the service.