Archived: The Hyde Care Home

The Hyde Care Home (known locally as ‘The Hyde’) is registered to provide residential care without nursing for up to 28 older people. Nursing care is provided from nurses based in the community. Twenty people were recorded as living at the service when we visited however, one person was in hospital at the time of our visit.

A registered manager was in post to manage the service. 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 registered manager was managing this and another service locally. They were supported by a deputy manager in each location and a staff structure which allowed them to have oversight of both services. We had discussions with the area manager, who represented the provider at the inspection, to ensure there was sufficient support for the registered manager to fulfil their role effectively. We were reassured this would be monitored when checks by the provider were completed at the service. This would help ensure any issues or support needs could be identified quickly.

People told us they were safe and happy living at The Hyde and were looked after by staff who were kind and treated them with respect, compassion and understanding. Staff told us there was a strong ethos of treating people with respect, protecting people’s dignity and maintaining people’s independence for as long as they were able.

People felt in control of their care. People’s medicines were administered safely and they had their nutritional and health needs met. People could see a range of health professionals as required. People had risk assessments in place so they could live safely at the service. These were mainly linked to people’s care plans and staff training to ensure care met people’s individual needs. The registered manager was going to ensure all risk assessments were in place and linked clearly to people’s care plans. People’s care plans were written with them, were personalised and reflected how they wanted their care delivered. People’s end of life needs were planned with them. People were supported to end their life with dignity and free of pain. The service was working towards accreditation in respect of how they cared for people and their families at the end of their life.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm and abuse. Staff were recruited safely and underwent training to ensure they were able to carry out their role effectively. Staff were trained to meet people’s specific needs. Staff promoted people’s rights to be involved in planning and consenting to their care. Where people were not able to consent to their care, staff followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant people’s human rights were upheld.

Activities were provided to keep people physically and cognitively stimulated. People’s faith and cultural needs were met.

There were clear systems of governance and leadership in place. The provider and registered manager ensured there were systems in place to measure the quality of the service. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback on the service. Everyone felt they were listened to and any contribution they made was taken seriously. Regular audits made sure the service was running well. Where issues were noted, action was taken to put this right.

Systems were in place to ensure the building and equipment were safe

On the day of our visit there were 19 people living at The Hyde. The home was clean, well-furnished and equipped. There was a welcoming atmosphere. We saw that people were well looked after.

The people we talked with all spoke highly of the care they received at The Hyde. One person said, 'It's a wonderful place. This is my home. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.' A person's relative told us, 'They have an open door policy here. I've never made a suggestion that hasn't been acted on.'

We saw that the equipment people use to help them be independent and safe was clean and well maintained.

We looked at staffing numbers and whether they were trained and qualified to meet people's needs. There were enough staff on duty on the day we visited. We saw that they were responding quickly to people's needs. Some of the people and staff we spoke with thought there were sometimes not enough staff on duty. We did not find any evidence that people were put at risk because of this.

We looked at how the provider monitored quality. We saw that they had a very thorough way of doing this, on a regular basis. They made changes where needed and did their best to respond to suggestions from people living there.

People told us they felt safe in the home. Staff were aware of the provider's safeguarding procedures. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and appraisal and had received appropriate training. People told us they felt the staff training was comprehensive.

The provider operated an effective system to monitor the quality of the service. People's views as to the running of the service were sought and acted upon. The provider carried out a number of audits and developed action plans to address any area requiring improvement.