You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 7 and 8 June 2018.

Hatton Court Care Home is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Hatton Court Care Home accommodates 60 older people some of whom were living with dementia. The provider also offered nursing care. On the days of our inspection 57 people were living in the home. The home is situated on one floor and was accessible to wheelchair users.

The home had a registered manager who was present on both days of our inspection visit. 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 previous inspection in January 2017, the service was rated Requires Improvement. We found that people living with dementia did not have the same opportunities as others. Although the former registered manager was aware of this, they had not taken any action to ensure people living with dementia were treated fairly. At this inspection the new registered manager told us that the unit where people living with dementia resided had closed and had recently reopened as a reablement unit. The provider continued to offer a service to people living with dementia. We found that these people were now treated equally and were offered the same opportunities as others and had access to various stimulating social activities.

Since our last inspection visit the provider had appointed a new management team. People knew who the new registered manager was and found them approachable and told us they were happy with the management of the home. The provider had effective governance in place to assess, monitor and to drive improvements. People and staff were given the opportunity to be involved in the running of the home. People were supported to maintain links with their local community and the involvement of outside agencies assisted with promoting people’s wellbeing.

People could be confident that their complaints would be listened to, taken seriously and acted on. The registered manager informed us that no one in the home was currently receiving end of life care.

People told us they felt safe living in the home and staff were aware of their responsibilities of safeguarding people from potential abuse. The risk to people was assessed and action was taken to minimise the risk of harm. People were cared for and supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely. Appropriate systems and practices were in place to ensure the safe management of medicines. Staff practices made sure people were protected from the risk of avoidable infections. Incidents, accidents and nears misses were reviewed and action taken to reduce the risk of a recurrence.

The assessment of people's care, support and treatment needs were carried out to ensure they received the appropriate support. People were cared for by staff who were skilled and supported in their role. People were complimentary about the meals provided and staff were aware of people’s food preferences with regards to their health condition, religion, likes and dislikes. Access to relevant healthcare services promoted people's physical and mental health.

The environment was conducive to people's needs and they had access to relevant aids and adaptations to promote their independence. People were encouraged to make their own decisions and staff were aware of the importance of obtaining their consent before delivering care and support.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and attentive to their needs. People’s involvement

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe living in the home and they could be confident that staff knew how to protect them from potential abuse. The provider had taken action to minimise the risk of harm to people. People were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely. Medicines were managed safely and people received their prescribed treatment as directed by the prescriber. Incidents, accidents and near misses had been recorded and action taken to avoid a recurrence.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was effective.

Care assessments were carried out with people’s involvement. People were cared for by staff who were skilled and supported in their role. People were supported by staff to eat and drink sufficient amounts to promote their health. People had access to relevant healthcare services if and when needed. The environment was suitable to meet people’s needs. People’s consent for care and treatment was obtained and staff were aware of the importance of allowing people to make their own decisions.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and attentive to people’s needs. People’s involvement in their care planning ensured they received care and support the way they liked. People’s right to privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People had access to social activities that reflected their interests. People who lived at the home and staff were treated fairly. Systems were in place to assist people to communicate and express their needs.

People could be confident that their complaints would be listened to and acted on.

At the time of our inspection visit no one was receiving end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider had appointed a new registered manager who was approachable and listened to people’s views. The provider’s governance assessed, monitored and drove improvements. People and staff were given the opportunity to be involved in the running of the home. People were supported by staff to maintain links with their local community.