Archived: Hall Field Guest House

Updated 7 July 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 18 June 2021 and was announced.

Updated 7 July 2021

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 20 and 22 November 2017.

We last carried out a comprehensive inspection on 21 September 2016. At that inspection we found the service to be in breach of the regulations relating to identifying and managing risk, person centred care, management of medicines and quality assurance.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; is the service safe, responsive and well led to at least good. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made in all areas.

Hall Field Guest House 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.

Hall Field Guest House is a large detached property on the outskirts of Stockport town centre. It provides accommodation and personal care people for adults who have learning disabilities. People who stay at Hall Field Guest House have permanent alternative accommodation but stay at the home for short stays or respite. At the time of our inspection there were 80 people registered to use the service. The home can accommodate up to six people at any one time. There were four people using the service on the first day of our inspection and five on the second.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 registered manager was leaving the service and was going to deregister with CQC. Whilst they were working their notice period they were working at another service the provider ran. The provider had recruited a new manager who was going to apply to be the registered manager. They had worked at Hall Field Guest house for three years. Everyone we spoke with was complimentary about the new manager and the way they ran the service.

The new manager was present during our inspection. We found them to be enthusiastic, caring and committed to providing good quality person centred care. We saw that people who used the service responded well to them.

Risk assessments were in place for the general environment. Appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out and equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately.

The management and administration of people’s medicines was safe demonstrating people received their medicines as prescribed.

Care records were detailed and person centred. They described people in positive ways and included information on how to promote peoples independence, including things the person liked to do for themselves. They contained information based on people’s needs and wishes and were sufficiently detailed to guide staff in how to provide the support people required. Records had been reviewed regularly.

There was a robust system of quality assurance in place. Weekly and monthly checks and audits were carried out by the manager and other managers of the service. These were used to assess, monitor and review the service.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from abuse and were able to demonstrate their understanding of the procedure to follow so that people were kept safe.

There was a safe system of recruitment in place which helped protect people who used the service from unsuitable staff. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to carry out their roles effectively.

The provider was meeting their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people's rights were considered and protected. Care records included information on how people could be supported to make decisions. People’s choices were respected.

People who used the service told us they liked the staff, they said they were caring and nice. We found staff knew people well. We observed staff were compassionate, friendly and interacted with people who used the service in a relaxed, warm and respectful way. There was also gentle banter between staff and people who used the service.

Care records gave details about how the person communicated. This included the use of communication systems, and verbal and non-verbal communication such as facial expressions and gestures.

We found that activities were provided within the home and people were also supported to access a wide variety of community based activities.

The service had guidance for staff on how to support people when they showed behaviour that challenged the service. Records contained information about what may make someone upset or angry, how the person communicated when they were anxious or upset and guided staff on how to respond, what to say and what to do to help the person and diffuse situations.

People had opportunities to comment about the service and there was a system in place for people to use if they wanted to complain.

Staff meetings were held regularly where staff had an opportunity to raise any issues and were used to look at developing good practise. Staff we spoke with liked working for the service and told us they felt supported in their work.

The service had notified CQC of any accidents, serious incidents, and safeguarding allegations as they are required to do.