Hayward Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

It was not evident staff fully assessed and understood people’s needs. For 1 person we found staff had not assessed their needs thoroughly. This meant the care plan produced did not consider all of this persons’ needs and gave staff little guidance on how to support this person in some areas. Staff were not able to demonstrate how this person had been involved in planning their care and support. For example, staff had not carried out observations of care for this person to assess if care provided was suitable and meeting this persons’ emotional, health and social needs. However, care records for other people demonstrated their needs had been thoroughly assessed and appropriate care plans produced.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We found the service was not meeting statutory guidance for people with learning disabilities – ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. Leaders were not knowledgeable about what the principles of this guidance meant for care and support delivered in services. This meant we found an example where a person was not receiving care and support according to evidence-based good practice.

Care provided for this person was not in line with guidance and was not person-centred. There was a significant impact for this person on their life. For example, staff had not considered sensory needs for this person. The person enjoyed having a bath and being in water, staff were bathing this person once per week and we found 11 days where the person had not had a bath or shower at all prior to this inspection. Further, this person had not been out of the service since their admission 5 months previous. This meant they had not accessed their local community and had opportunity to use local facilities such as swimming pools, in line with their preferences. Whilst other people at the service had been out on trips in the local community, this person had not been provided with that opportunity.

Feedback from people and staff about the food quality was mixed. People told us they had choice of meals, but some felt the variety and quality could be better. Comments included, “The food is ok, but could be better, we need more things” and “I feel that the food is not flavoured very well. I feel you could survive on it, and you wouldn’t starve, but it is bland and not flavoured.” We saw that food quality had been discussed at ‘residents meetings’ and the registered manager told us they were working with kitchen staff to make improvements to food quality.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff were able to access local authority assessments of people’s needs where appropriate. This helped staff understand people’s circumstances prior to needing care and support. There were good communication channels with local healthcare professionals and staff knew where to make referrals for all health conditions.

Staff had daily handovers which enabled them to share information about changes to people’s needs and there was a daily head of departments meeting. This meant all heads of department met with management to discuss various topics and then cascade any information to staff in their own department. Staff said there was good communication amongst teams at the service, and they all felt they worked well together. Comments from staff included, “Staff teams work well together to ensure the service runs well and is safe” and “Staff teams work well, no concerns and there is good communication.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service had set up good links with the local GP surgery which meant people had a weekly visit from their GP. If people needed further visits from the GP this could also be arranged. Whilst this service is a nursing home, only people with identified nursing needs were supported by nurses employed by the service. If people did not have nursing needs, staff contacted community nurses to visit people and ensure their needs were met.

People’s records confirmed staff were pro-active in seeking advice on health needs from many different healthcare professionals.

People and relatives told us staff were responsive in making sure people had the health care they needed. Comments from people included, “If I don’t feel well, staff will get the doctor in, they [staff] look after me well” and “The staff spot changes in [person’s] health and phone us if they are concerned.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s records demonstrated staff were routinely monitoring care and support. Where people had risk of skin damage, staff consistently re-positioned them following care plan guidance. If people were at risk of malnutrition staff consistently recorded food and fluid intake.

Staff also carried out wellbeing checks and safety checks on people. Some people were identified as needing 2 hourly checks and some people needed a more frequent check. These checks were recorded on the electronic care plan system which enabled leaders to monitor staff actions.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff had been provided with training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood the principles. Where needed, staff had assessed people’s capacity to make their own decisions. Records demonstrated if people lacked capacity, staff followed the best interest process and included relevant others in decision making.

People told us staff always asked for consent before providing care and staff respected their wishes. Comments from people included, “Staff are always asking, is it alright if we do this, or do you want us to do that” and “They [staff] do ask before they do any task. I do feel that they are respectful in the way they treat me and others.”