You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hatzfeld House on 9 September 2021. 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 Hatzfeld House, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 6 November 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Hatzfeld House is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 42 people. Some of the people living at this home were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 32 people were living at this home.

People’s experience of using this service:

The risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and used to reduce risk. Most risk assessments reflected people’s needs. The registered manager acted quickly when we raised concerns about certain parts of the environment. These actions made people safer. People felt safe when staff supported them.

Staff understood how to act if they suspected people could be the victim of abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe. People’s medicines were managed, administered and stored safely. The home was clean and tidy, although some cleaning schedules had not been completed. Staff learned from mistakes to ensure people received safe care and support.

People’s needs were assessed in line with current best practice guidelines. Staff were well trained and felt supported by the registered manager to carry out their role effectively. People were given the support they needed to make healthy food choices. People had access to other health and social care agencies and professionals. People were supported to make decisions about their own health, such as deciding to quit smoking. People lived in an environment that was adapted and suitable for their needs.

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.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and understood what was important to them. People were treated with dignity and respect by staff; although, some of the language used by staff to describe people was not dignified. Staff excelled at supporting people with their diverse needs and choice; people’s views were respected and acted on. People were supported to make decisions about their care needs and staff respected their wishes. People’s records were stored securely to protect their privacy.

People were provided with person-centred care and were encouraged and empowered to make decisions about their own lives. Independence was encouraged and staff understood what support people needed with their personal care. People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family and to meet people from their local community. This helped to reduce the risk of social isolation.

People had access to information in a format they could understand. This included in languages other than English where required. Complaints were handled appropriately and in-line with the provider’s complaints policy. People did not currently receive end of life care. People were supported to make decisions about the end of their life.

The home was managed by a caring and dedicated registered manager who always put the experiences of people and staff first. People lived in homely environment that was welcoming and calm. All staff understood their roles and how they contributed to the success of the home. Person-centred care was at the heart of everything staff did. Staff enjoyed their role and felt their views mattered. People’s views were welcomed and valued, and action was taken to address any concerns. Quality assurance processes were in place to continually assess the standard of the care provided.

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 Outstanding. (Published 11 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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 soone

Inspection carried out on 30 March 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 30 March 2017. Hatzfeld House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 42 people who require accommodation or personal care, some of whom may be living with dementia or other mental health conditions. At the time of the inspection there were 42 people living at the home.

On the day of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. 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 risk to people’s safety was reduced because staff had attended safeguarding adults training, could identify the different types of abuse, and knew the procedure for reporting concerns. Risk assessments had been completed in areas where people’s safety could be at risk. People had the freedom to live their lives as they wanted to. Staff were recruited in a safe way and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe.

Accidents and incidents were investigated. Assessments of the risks associated with the environment which people lived were carried out and people had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place. Safe procedures for the management of people’s medicines were in place.

People were supported by staff who received an induction, were well trained and received regular assessments of their work. People felt staff understood how to support them effectively.

The registered manager ensured the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) had been applied when decisions had been made for people. The registered manager was aware of the requirements to apply for and implement Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards where required.

People were encouraged to lead a healthy and balanced lifestyle. People’s day to day health needs were met by the staff and external professionals. Referrals to relevant health services were made where needed.

People had an excellent relationship with the staff. People were supported by staff who were very kind and caring and treated them with respect and dignity. People were encouraged to lead independent lives and care and support was tailored to enable people to do so. Innovative methods were used to communicate with people and there were individualised processes in place to help people understand and contribute to, decisions about the care. All people were treated equally with a strong emphasis on supporting people’s diverse needs, including their religion and sexual orientation. There was a high emphasis on person centred care and staff were aware of the importance of encouraging people to lead their lives in the way they wanted.

People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to speak with an independent advocate, to support them with decisions about their care. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to and agreed processes were in place to support people with visiting their relatives.

People’s support records had a strong, person centred approach, where people were empowered to achieve their goals and ambitions. People’s care and support needs were regularly discussed with them and progress on achieving their goals was regularly reviewed. People were encouraged to take part in activities that were important to them and staff provided as much or as little support as people wanted. People were provided with the information they needed, in a format they could understand, if they wished to make a complaint.

People, relatives, staff and health and social professionals spoke highly of the registered manager; they found her to be dedicated, approachable and supportive. The registered manager ensured all people received high quality and person centred care. The registered

Inspection carried out on 15 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 15 September 2015. Hatzfeld House provides accommodation for up to 38 people who require personal care. On the day of our inspection 37 people were using the service and there was a registered manager in place.

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 risk to people experiencing abuse at the home was reduced because staff had received training on safeguarding of adults, could identify the different types of abuse and knew who to report concerns to. Accidents and incidents were investigated. Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place for all people. There were enough staff with the right skills and experience to meet people’s needs. Medicines were stored, administered and handled safely.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The DoLS are part of the MCA. They aim to make sure that people are looked after in a way that does not restrict their freedom. The safeguards should ensure that a person is only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way, and that this is only done when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way to look after them. The registered manager had applied the principles of the MCA and DoLS appropriately.

People were supported by staff who had received the appropriate training to support people effectively. Staff received supervision of their work although some staff had not received one for a longer period of time than they were required to by the provider. People spoke positively about the food they received and were supported to eat and drink independently. People’s food and fluid intake was monitored and guidance to manage this effectively was requested from dieticians when required. People had regular access to their GP and other health care professionals.

People were supported by staff who were caring and treated them with kindness, respect and dignity. Where people showed signs of distress or discomfort, staff responded to them quickly. People were supported to access an independent advocate if they wanted to. There were no restrictions on friends and relatives visiting their family members. People could have privacy when needed.

People and their relatives were involved with the planning of the care and support provided. Care plans were written in a way that focused on people’s choices and preferences. Regular monitoring of people’s assessed needs was conducted to ensure staff responded appropriately. People were able to access the activities and hobbies that interested them. A complaints procedure was in place and people felt comfortable in making a complaint if needed.

There was a positive atmosphere within the home and people were encouraged to contribute to decisions to improve and develop the service. Staff understood the values and aims of the service and were aware of how they could contribute to reduce the risk to people’s health and safety. People spoke highly of the registered manager. The registered manager had clear processes in place to manage the risks to people and the service. Robust auditing and quality monitoring processes were in place. The service continually strived to improve the quality of the service that people received.

Inspection carried out on 31 May 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection there were thirty four people using the service. We spoke directly with two people who used the service and with three relatives. We also spoke with two care staff, a domestic assistant and the registered manager.

We saw evidence that people were consulted before receiving care. One of the people who used the service told us, "They talk to me about my care and they don't force things upon me." A relative we spoke with told us, "They discuss the care with me. They call me if something needs to be done.�

We saw that the building was safe, clean and adequately maintained. One relative told us, "The place is immaculate; the people that run it are tremendous."

We saw that staff were trained for their role. One staff member told us, "The training definitely meets my needs."

We saw that records relevant to the management of the service were accurate and up to date.

Inspection carried out on 6 June 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us they felt they were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was respected. One person told us, �I am respected and we are treated well by the bosses.� Another person said, �Staff speak with me respectfully. They have a joke with me. Its fun.�

We saw two people use a motorised scooter to aid their mobility. One of these people told us they go out into the local village. They said, �I can go out when I want, I�ve got a scooter.� Another person told us, �I am able to be as independent as I can. They let me do as I wish.�

We saw people being offered choices at lunchtime and when one person did not want the dinner provided they were brought an alternative. One person told us, �We are communicated with. We get a choice of everything.�

People also told us how they were involved in the planning for their future. One person said, �Staff go through care plans with me, I have an input. I can say what I want to happen.� Another person told us, �I feel involved. I am moving into one of the new flats, I am being supported to do this. I will be able to be more independent.�

One person told us they enjoyed visits from their family, �My family come to visit me, they are always made welcome.�

People told us they felt safe in the home. One person said, �I feel safe. No problems.� Another person told us, �I feel very safe here.� We saw a record in someone�s care plan that said, �I feel a lot safer now I have care staff with me.�

Another person told us, �I have never been spoken to unpleasantly. One person shouts out sometimes, staff treat them sensitively.� Someone else said staff were, �sympathetic and patient when they need to be.�

People told us they felt the staff had the skills they needed to carry out their duties. One person said, �The staff are very good� and someone else told us, �Staff seem to be trained and know what they are doing.�

People told us they felt involved in the running of the home and were able to put forward their ideas. One person said, �We are listened to.� Someone else told us, �I go to residents� meetings. We talk about everything.�

People also told us they were happy with how the home was run. One person told us, �I have no problems here whatsoever� and another person said, �Staff are brilliant, I would give them 10 out of 10. The manager is �spot on.�

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)