We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hayes Park Nursing Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Hayes Park Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had systems in place to manage an outbreak of COVID-19. Information about COVID-19, infection prevention and control practices, and guidance on how to use personal protective equipment (PPE) and maintain good hand hygiene was displayed around the home.
The provider was following government guidance regarding visiting arrangements. Information about visiting was clearly displayed in the home. All visitors were required to show a negative lateral flow test and had their temperature checked, wore PPE, which included a face mask before entering.
Staff were trained and followed safe infection prevention and control procedures, including the safe wearing and disposal of PPE and regularly sanitising their hands. We saw PPE was accessible within the home and staff used it in accordance with the most up to date guidance. PPE stations were placed outside rooms where people were isolating.
Safe admission processes were in place to support people being admitted to the service. Risks to people had been assessed which considered the impact of COVID-19. People were risk assessed regarding the testing and vaccinations, and best interest procedures were followed.
The service was clean. We observed increased cleaning of high touch point were in place. Cleaning schedules and recording documents were completed regularly. A monthly internal infection control audit was undertaken.
Staff were kept up to date with specific government guidance in the management of COVID-19. Staff engaged in a programme of regular COVID-19 testing.
Hayes Park Nursing Home is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 49 people. The service supports younger adults and older people living with dementia, physical disability and need nursing care. At the time of the inspection visit 32 people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People continued to be supported to stay safe. Staff were trained in safeguarding procedures and knew how to report concerns when people’s health, safety and wellbeing was at risk. Risks to people were assessed, managed and monitored. The new electronic care planning system provided guidance for staff to follow to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.
People received their medicines in a safe way. Medicines were stored safely. The new electronic medicines system provided staff with all the relevant information they needed to support people with their medicines. People had access to a wide range of healthcare support. Staff worked with health professionals to meet people’s ongoing health needs. Procedures were followed to ensure people had the opportunity to express their wishes in relation to end of life care.
Staff recruitment procedures were followed to protect people from unsuitable staff. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were monitored and managed. Staff were trained to have the knowledge and skills they needed to support people safely and effectively. Staff received regular support and supervisions.
People were provided with enough to eat and drink. People’s dietary needs and requirements were met to maintain good health. Menus choices reflected people’s food preferences and cultural diets. We observed the dining experience was positive with examples of staff being attentive, kind and encouraging people who needed support to eat and drink.
People made decisions about their day to day care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff sought consent before providing personal care.
People lived in a clean and tidy environment. People had personalised their rooms and there were choices for communal areas people could use. There was ongoing decoration and improvements being made to the home. Further action was needed in relation to sensory stimulation and contrast colouring to benefit people living with dementia and sensory impairment.
People received care and support from a consistent group of staff. Staff were kind, caring and had established meaningful relationships. All the staff were committed to non-discriminatory practices and to providing quality care. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, and their independence was promoted by staff.
People received care that was personalised and responsive. People were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. The new electronic care planning system showed people's needs were assessed thoroughly and in good detail. Individual preferences, wishes and diverse needs were captured so staff knew how people wished to be supported.
People’s individual lifestyles choices, religious and cultural needs were respected. Multilingual staff spoke with people in the same language which ensured they could fully express their views and wishes. People were protected from the risk of isolation as there were individual and group activities people could join in.
People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to and support was available as required. Systems were in place to ensure the views of people, their relatives and staff were sought and acted on.
The registered manager understood their legal responsibilities. The provider’s quality assurance and governance systems were being used effectively to monitor and improve the quality of the service. Everyone we spoke with felt the registered manager was approachable. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published May 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Hayes Park Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Hayes Park Nursing Home is a care home that provides residential and nursing care for up to 49 people. A number of people accommodated at the service have complex physical and mental health needs. Some people are living with dementia and others are receiving end of life care. At the time of our inspection there were 35 people in residence. The service is located in Leicester and accommodation is provided over three floors with a lift for access.
At the last comprehensive inspection in February 2015, the service was rated good.
At this inspection we found the service remained good.
A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they felt safe using the service and that staff knew what to do if they had any concerns about their well-being. Staff were trained and knowledgeable about how to provide safe and responsive care to people.
People’s care needs had been assessed and measures to manage risks were put in place. Staff ensured people were assisted to move around the premises safely and supported them with their meals. People received their medicines at the right times. Staff liaised with health care professionals where there were any concerns about people’s health. The care plans for people with complex health needs were personalised and provided staff with clear information to ensure their health needs were met. Arrangements were in place to ensure people were pain free and had the support they needed towards the end of their life.
People’s needs and care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure the support provided remained appropriate. Staff had a good awareness of people’s needs and insight into their health conditions. People’s preferences, interests, diverse and cultural needs were documented and known to staff. This meant people could be assured their care was personalised to their needs, and their cultural and lifestyle choices were respected.
Staff had undergone a robust recruitment process that ensured staff and nurses were qualified and suitable to work at the service. Staff employed were aware of people’s the cultural backgrounds and had a range of language skills so they could communicate with people whose first language was not English. People told us there were enough staff employed to meet their needs. Staff received training, support and guidance through supervision and meetings in order to meet people’s needs effectively. Staff had their competency and practice checked to ensure they were safe to meet people’s needs.
Staff understood the importance of seeking people’s consent prior to providing care and support. Assessments to determine people’s capacity to make informed decisions about their care had been undertaken. Staff promoted people’s rights to make decisions about all aspects of their care and lifestyle choices.
People told us they were provided with a choice of meals that met their nutritional and cultural dietary needs. Drinks and snacks were readily available and staff supported people with their meals. People were asked for their views about the meals provided and their preferences were taken into account in menu planning.
People told us staff were kind and caring towards them. Staff knew how to support people living with dementia and recognised how people communicated and expressed themselves. People had developed positive relationships with staff and were confident that they would address any concerns or complaint they might have.
People were involved and made decisions about their care and support needs. Care plans were focused on the person and incorporated advice from health and social care professionals. People told us that the staff were responsive to their needs and requests for assistance. People’s care records were organised, easily accessible and kept up to date reflective of people’s wishes. That meant in the event of a medical emergency people would be assured that staff would act in line with their wishes.
People’s care needs were met and their diverse, cultural, and their lifestyle choices were respected. People’s relatives and visitors were made welcome. People were encouraged and supported to take part in activities that were of interest to them and celebrated important cultural and religious events to reflect the diverse community of people in residence.
People were confident in how the service was managed and the abilities of the management team to ensure the service provided was effective. People’s views and opinions of their relatives and staff were sought in a number of ways including meetings and surveys.
The registered manager provided good leadership and direction, and promoted a culture of openness. The provider’s governance system to monitor the quality of the service was used effectively to drive improvements to ensure people received quality care and a service that was well managed.
This inspection took place on 11 February 2015 and was unannounced.
Hayes Park Nursing Home is a care home that provides residential and nursing care for up to 49 people. The home specialises in caring for older people including those with physical disabilities, people living with dementia or those who require end of life care. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people in residence. There were a number of people for whom English was not their first language.
A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us that they felt safe. People were well cared for, felt safe with the staff that looked after them and protected them from harm and abuse. People’s care and support needs had been assessed and people were involved in the development of their plan of care. People told us they were satisfied with the care provided.
Staff were recruited in accordance with the provider’s recruitment procedures that ensured staff were qualified and suitable to work at the home. We observed there to be sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs and that they worked in a co-ordinated manner. Staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities and trained to look after people and protect them from harm and abuse.
People received their medication as prescribed and their medication was stored safely. Staff were appropriately trained in medicines management and their competency assessed to ensure people’s medicines were managed properly to maintain their health and wellbeing.
People lived in a homely and comfortable environment that promoted their safety, privacy and wellbeing.
Staff received an appropriate induction and ongoing training for their job role. They had access to people’s care records and were knowledgeable about people’s needs and things that were important to them.
The management team and staff knew how to protect people under the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). We observed that staff gained consent before care and support was provided. The principles of the MCA Code of Practice about people’s freedom were followed which promoted people’s rights and choices about their care and treatment.
People were provided with a choice of meals that met people’s cultural and dietary needs. There were drinks and snacks available throughout the day and night. We saw staff supported people who needed help to eat and drink in a sensitive manner. The catering staff were provided with up to date information about people’s dietary needs and requirements.
People’s health needs had been assessed and met by the nurses and health care professionals. Staff sought appropriate medical advice and support form health care professionals when people’s health was of concern and had routine health checks.
People spoke positively about the staff’s attitude and approach. They felt staff were kind and caring. Their privacy and dignity was respected in the delivery of care and their choice of lifestyle. Relatives we spoke with were also complimentary about the staff and the care. People gave examples of how they were supported to express their views in how they wished to be supported and that staff listened and respected their wishes.
We observed staff to be kind, caring and respected people’s dignity and privacy, which promoted their wellbeing. Staff had a good understanding of people’s care and cultural needs. Staff told us that they had developed good relationships and were converse with people using their first language which was not English.
People told us that they were supported by staff to pursue their hobbies and interests that were important to them. These included their cultural and religious needs and maintain contact with family and friends. Visitors were welcome without undue restrictions. This protected people from social isolation.
People were confident to raise any issues, concerns or to make complaints. People had access to an independent advocacy services if they needed support to make comments or a complaint. People said they felt staff listened to them and responded promptly if there were any changes to their health needs and wellbeing.
Staff told us they had access to information about people’s care and support needs and what was important to people. Staff were supported and trained for their job roles to ensure their knowledge, skills and practice in the delivery of care was kept up to date. Staff knew they could make comments or raise concerns with the management team about the way the service was run and knew it would be acted on.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities and demonstrated a commitment to provide quality care. They had an ‘open door’ policy to encourage feedback from people who used the service, relatives of people who used the service, health and social care professionals and staff. The provider had developed opportunities for people to express their views about the service. This included the views and suggestions from relatives of people using the service and health and social care professionals to develop the service.
There were effective systems in place for the maintenance of the building and equipment which ensured people lived in an environment which was well maintained and safe. Internal audits and checks were used to ensure people’s safety and their needs were being met. The quality of the service provided was monitored and action was taken to address any deficiencies found. The registered manager reported the service’s performance to the provider who also monitored the quality of care provided.
People were helped to make choices about their daily lives. Some people chose to stay in their rooms.
People were supported and encouraged to be involved in a number of activities which took into account their cultural backgrounds.
We saw that people's support plans were detailed and took account of their individual needs and how these would be supported. We found that staff supported people appropriately and spoke to them in a friendly and respectful manner.
The provider took appropriate steps to protect the people living and working there from harm.
Staff were trained and supported and delivered care which met people's needs.
The provider had adequate quality assurance systems which made sure the safety and comfort of the people they cared for were maintained and any problems resolved. There where systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to find out the views of people who used the service and of their representatives.
We saw that care staff spoke with people in a sensitive and caring manner and that people were helped to make choices such as what to eat and where to eat, or whether to stay in their rooms.
People were supported and encouraged to be involved in a number of appropriate activities.
We saw that people's support plans were detailed and took account of their individual needs and how these would be supported. The provider took appropriate steps to protect the people living and working there from harm.
The provider had adequate quality assurance systems which made sure the safety and comfort of the people they cared for were maintained and any problems resolved.
told us care workers were around to provide help and assistance. We saw that care workers were attentive to people's needs and feelings during our visit. We saw care workers attend to requests for assistance promptly. We observed all staff speaking with people in a respectful manner.
We saw people were moved from chair to wheelchair using appropriate equipment. Care workers provided reassurance to the person at all times whilst using the hoist, and explained what they were going to do.
People who used the service and their representatives told use that they felt that people's safety was maintained.
People felt that there was sufficient numbers staff on duty but the relatives of one person felt that the staff did not always respond in a timely manner to meet people's needs.
People told us that they enjoyed the meals provided at the home.