Archived: Highfield Care Home

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and this was confirmed by relatives.

Staff received appropriate training and informal supervision which helped them understand people and keep them safe. We saw there were plans to ensure all staff received formal supervision. Thorough risk assessments had been carried out and plans put in place to reduce the risks to people of physical or emotional harm.

We saw records which showed all staff had attended training in safeguarding adults and the Mental Capacity Act (2005). All care workers and managers we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of the principles of safeguarding and gave us examples of raising concerns and of the provider following these concerns up.

Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and managers and staff were able to describe these to us.

Is the service effective?

People had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. They told us they had been fully involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan. Staff were aware of people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs and supported people to meet these.

The service had systems in place to monitor the care provided and to ensure people were happy with it.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with said they felt staff treated them with respect and dignity. We saw staff introducing themselves and talking and listening to people in a respectful and warm way. Care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us staff were "wonderful" while another said, "They're kind and they treat everyone equally." A relative told us, "Staff show genuine care and fondness." Our observations of the care provided, discussions with people and records we looked at told us that individual wishes for care and support were taken into account and respected. We saw staff were attentive to people and there were high levels of engagement with them. This created a friendly environment with a nurturing atmosphere.

Is the service responsive?

Information about the service was provided both verbally and in writing and focused on people having choices and on helping them maintain their independence. People told us they had been given opportunities to ask questions and had any concerns listened to and acted on. Most people and relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They told us the service took complaints seriously and looked into them quickly.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received the right care. People told us they were involved in reviewing their plans of care when their needs changed.

Is the service well-led?

The service had good quality assurance systems, and records showed identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff showed us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They had an understanding of the ethos of the service and the quality assurance processes which were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times. People themselves and their relatives were asked for their feedback and this helped improve care.

Individual nutritional needs were assessed. We saw that people were supported to eat and drink with any concerns being referred to the dietician. Staff recorded a person's food and fluid intake and advised the kitchen team of dietary preferences.

The service worked to the local authority's policy for safeguarding adults from abuse and they had provided some staff training in this subject. However, we found that there was a lack of awareness in relation to escalating concerns to outside agencies.

We looked at management of medicines and found that the service followed safe working practice guidelines.

The service had an effective recruitment procedure. We looked at five staff files and saw that they included the appropriate documentation.

The care plans and records had been recently improved. They were person centred and related to people's individual wishes and preferences and considered their life history when their care was planned and agreed with them. People's consent to care was appropriately recorded.

We found that there were sufficient staff on duty when we visited. The rota and staff statements confirmed that the staffing level was always appropriate to meet people's needs.

Records had been improved as recommended during a previous inspection and staff explained that the new records provided more personalised information about individual people. Medication records were also safer and easier to monitor with the addition of records showing how much medication brought forward to the following month.

All seven people told us that they were happy with their care, that they felt safe and respected and that staff were nice and kind to everyone.