We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hazeldene Care 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 Hazeldene Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
Staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with the Government guidance. PPE was easily accessible around the home and was disposed of safely. Staff had received training in infection control, COVID-19 and how to put on and take off PPE safely.
The home was clean. Enhanced cleaning was being completed regularly throughout the home to ensure people were protected as much as possible from the risk of cross infection.
There were clear processes in place for visitors to the service. On arrival, their temperature was taken, they were screened for COVID-19 symptoms and where appropriate, they were required to take a lateral flow device (rapid) test to confirm that they did not have a COVID-19 infection. They were required to wear appropriate PPE and maintain social distancing during their visit. The provider was facilitating visits in line with the Government guidance and understood how important this was to people living at the home and their families and friends.
Staff and people living at the home were being tested regularly in line with Government guidance, to ensure that appropriate action could be taken if anyone contracted the COVID-19 virus.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
At the last inspection on 22, 23 and 27 February 2017, we did not find any breaches of our regulations. However, we rated the service as Requires Improvement as we found that appropriate action had not always been taken when people experienced a fall and care documentation had not always updated when people’s needs or risks changed. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider was meeting all regulations reviewed.
The service had a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day to day running of the home. 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.
Most people who lived at the home and their relatives felt there were enough staff available to meet their needs. Following our inspection, the registered manager introduced changes to staffing arrangements at the home, to ensure that staff were available at all times to keep people safe and provide support when people needed it.
Records showed that staff had been recruited safely and the staff we spoke with were aware of how to safeguard adults at risk.
People told us the staff who supported them were kind and caring. They told us staff provided them with support when they needed it.
People told us staff respected their right to privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as they could be. We saw evidence of this during the inspection.
Staff received an effective induction and appropriate training. People who lived at the service and their relatives felt that staff were competent and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.
People received appropriate support with eating and drinking and their healthcare needs were met. Appropriate referrals were made to community healthcare professionals.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, the service had taken appropriate action in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People told us that they received care that reflected their individual needs and preferences and we saw evidence of this. Staff told us they knew people well and gave examples of people’s routines and how people liked to be supported.
People were supported to take part in a variety of activities and events. They told us they were happy with the activities that were available at the home.
Staff communicated effectively with people. They supported people sensitively and did not rush them when providing care. People’s communication needs were identified and appropriate support was provided.
The registered manager regularly sought feedback from people living at the home about the support they received. We saw evidence that the feedback received was used to develop and improve the service.
People living at the service and staff were happy with how the service was being managed. They found the registered manager approachable and supportive.
A variety of audits of quality and safety were completed regularly by the registered manager and the regional manager. We found the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were maintained at the home.
Hazeldene Care Home provides care and accommodation for up to 60 older people. Accommodation at the home is provided on three units, two residential and one for people living with dementia related needs. The majority of the bedrooms are ensuite and there are accessible toilet and bathroom facilities on both floors. The service is situated in Clayton le Dale in Blackburn, East Lancashire. At the time of our inspection there were 46 people living at the home.
At the time of our inspection the service had a registered manager who had been in post since June 2016 and had been registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) since 10 February 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 service was last inspected on 2, 3 and 7 December 2015, when we found a breach of our regulations relating to staffing. At that time, we also made recommendations about the storage of medicines and meeting the needs of people living with dementia. Following that inspection the provider sent us an action plan detailing the improvements they would make.
During this inspection we found that improvements had been made in relation to staffing, the storage of medicines and meeting the needs of people living with dementia. We did not find any breaches of our regulations.
During our inspection we found that there were appropriate policies and procedures in place for the safe management of medicines. We observed staff administering medicines safely.
People living at the home told us the home environment was safe and they received safe care. Most people we spoke with were happy with staffing levels at the home and felt that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.
We saw evidence that staff had been recruited safely. The staff we spoke with understood how to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse and what action to take if they suspected that abusive practice was taking place.
We found that people’s risks, such as a risk of falling, were not always managed appropriately. Accident recording was not completed consistently by staff and care plans and risk assessments were not always updated when people’s needs changed. This meant that it was difficult to ensure that staff were managing people’s needs and risks effectively.
We found that staff received an appropriate induction, effective training and regular supervision. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager.
Staff understood the main principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the importance of gaining people’s consent and their right to refuse care. The service had taken appropriate action where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care and needed to be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe. We found evidence that where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, their relatives had been consulted.
People living at the home were happy with quality of the food provided. They told us they had lots of choice at mealtimes and we saw evidence of this during our inspection.
People received support with their healthcare needs and we received positive feedback from community health and social care professionals about standards of care at the home.
We observed staff communicating with people in a kind and respectful way. People told us staff respected their privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be independent.
People were supported to take part in a variety of activities inside and outside the home. Most people living at the home and relatives were happy with the activities available.
We saw evidence that the registered manager requested feedback about the service from people living at the home, their relatives and staff and acted on the feedback received.
People told us they thought the home was well managed. They felt that the registered manager was approachable and supportive.
The registered manager and the regional manager regularly audited many aspects of the service. We found that the audits completed were generally effective in ensuring that appropriate standards of care and safety were maintained at the home.
We carried out an inspection of Hazeldene Care Home on 2, 3 and 7 December 2015. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.
Hazeldene Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 60 older people, including people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 46 people living at the service.
Accommodation at the home is provided over three units, one of which is specifically for people
living with dementia. Bedrooms are located over two floors and a lift is available. There is a lounge and dining room on each unit and all rooms have wheelchair access. Of the 60 bedrooms, 43 have ensuite facilities and there are suitably equipped toilet and bathroom facilities on each unit.
At the time of our inspection, the service did not have a registered manager 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. An acting manager was in post and had been managing the service for nine weeks. The acting manager told us she planned to submit an application to the Commission in the near future to become the registered manager for the service.
During this inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 relating to staffing. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
As part of this inspection we have made recommendations about the storage of medicines and meeting the needs of people with dementia.
The people we spoke with at the service told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I feel safe here. There’s always help when you need it”.
We saw evidence that staff had been recruited safely and the staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse and what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.
Some people living at the service, their relatives and staff told us that staffing levels were sufficient. However, others felt that more staff were needed to meet people’s needs. During our inspection we observed that there were occasions when staff were not available on the dementia unit to support people appropriately.
There were appropriate policies and procedures in place for managing medicines and people told us they received their medicines when they needed them.
The people we spoke with and their relatives were happy with the care provided at the home. One person told us, “The staff look after me well. They’re all excellent”.
We found that staff were well supported. They received an appropriate induction, regular supervision and could access training if they needed it.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the service had taken appropriate action where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care.
People told us they had been involved in decisions about their care and we saw evidence of this in people’s care records. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, we saw evidence that their relatives had been consulted.
Everyone we spoke with was happy with the food at the home and felt their nutritional needs were being met. We observed that staff did not always engage with people when they were supporting them with their meals.
People were supported with their healthcare needs and were referred appropriately to a variety of health care services. A visiting district nurse and a local optician and pharmacist were happy with the care being provided at the service.
The people we spoke with told us the staff at the service were caring and we saw most staff treating people with kindness, compassion and respect. However, we observed one member of staff being inpatient when providing support and we raised this with the manager who took appropriate action. People and their relatives told us staff respected their privacy and dignity and they were encouraged to be independent.
We observed that people’s needs were responded to in a timely manner and saw evidence that their needs were reviewed regularly.
A variety of activities were available if people wished to take part in them.
We saw evidence that the manager requested feedback about the service from the people living there and their relatives. The manager told us she planned to use the recently received feedback to develop the service.
People living at the home and their relatives told us they felt the service was well managed and they felt able to raise any concerns.
We saw that the service had a clear statement of purpose which focused on the importance of providing people with high quality, individualised care.
The staff and the manager communicated with people, their visitors and each other in a polite and respectful manner.
The people we spoke with told us the staff and the management at the home were approachable.
We saw evidence that a variety of audits were completed regularly. However, some of the audits had not been effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of safety at the home were being maintained.
During the inspection we spoke with eight people who used the service, six members of staff, the designated manager, deputy manager and administrator. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We the information to answer the five questions we always ask;
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service well-led?
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe at the service. One person told us, 'There's never any shouting, I definitely don't feel bullied'. Another person said, 'All the staff are nice'.
People said they were satisfied with the clean, comfortable and well maintained accommodation provided at Hazeldene Care Home. However, we found some improvements were needed for people's well-being, safety and comfort.
Staff recruitment practices were in place to protect people from unsuitable staff. However, progress was needed to make sure gaps in employment histories were always checked and clarified.
We received mixed views from people using the service and staff, about the availability of care workers to provide effective support. We found there were insufficient staff on duty in the unit for people with a dementia. However, the designated manager began to take action in response to these matters during the inspection.
We didn't look fully at medicine practices; however we found there was a lack of directions for staff to follow on some medicines. This meant people may not have been getting proper support with their medicine.
Is the service effective?
We found arrangements were in place to assess people's needs and abilities prior to admission. This meant individual needs and choices would be considered and planned for before they moved into the home.
Records and discussion showed people were getting attention as appropriate, from healthcare professionals. Staff confirmed people had access to a range of healthcare resources.
People spoken with were mostly satisfied with various activities, events and visiting entertainers. Arrangements were in place to offer a range of individual and group activities.
We there was equipment to meet people's needs and to promote independence. However, we found several communal toilets were lacking in suitable adaptations and equipment to promote independence.
Processes were in place for staff to attain nationally recognised qualifications. Staff spoken with, told us of the training they had received. They were aware of people's needs and gave examples of how they delivered support.
Is the service caring?
People who used the service told us they were happy with the care and support they experienced at Hazeldene Care Home. They said: 'They are respectful and caring, very much so', 'It's not bad', 'They keep an eye on me' and 'We get good care'.
We observed staff treating people in a kind, friendly and respectful way. People told us they were happy with the staff team they said, 'I have no problems with the staff', 'The staff are very good' and 'The carers are excellent'. However, we observed people with a dementia were not considerately and sensitively supported with their lunch.
CQC monitors the operation of the DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) which applies to care homes. Policies, procedures and a code of practice were available to support appropriate practice around DoLS and the Mental Capacity Act and staff training had been arranged on these topics. However, improvements were needed with screening people's capacity to make choices and support best interest decisions.
Is the service responsive?
Arrangements were in place to review people's needs and abilities. This meant their individual needs and choices were being be considered and planned for. However, we found some progress was needed, in describing how staff should offer people reassurance and the specific manner in which to approach and respond to people.
Processes were in place to monitor people's health and well-being, arrangements were being made for GP visits and routine healthcare appointments with chiropodists and opticians.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a registered manager; however he was no longer working at the home and was in the process of cancelling his registration. There was a new manager in post who had designated responsibility for the service. There was also a deputy manager, senior care workers and an administrator to provide on-going direction and supervision of the service. Support and expertise was also provided by external management within the organisation.
People told us they were happy with the support they experienced at Hazeldene Care Home. We found people were involved with decisions which affected them on a daily basis. People's views and opinions were also sought and responded to within residents meetings and through satisfaction surveys. Regular audit checks were being carried out on various processes and practices. This meant there were systems in place to assess and monitor how the home was operating and to evaluate the quality of the service. However, we found some of the checking systems needed to more effectively identify and manage areas for improvement.
We spoke with four people living in the home (residents) and five relatives and mixed with people living in the dementia unit. We also spoke with the (new) manager and three members of staff.
Comments from residents and relatives indicated they were satisfied with the care they received and included: "The staff are very caring; they are lovely with them", "Without a doubt I am well looked after", "Staff are very attentive" and "They are courteous and obliging".
At the time of our visit we found overall people were looked after to a satisfactory standard and saw staff treating residents with respect. However we saw the care and services in the dementia unit could be improved. This was highlighted by the local authority at a recent visit. The manager had produced an improvement plan which was being implemented. We also found there had been recent safeguarding incidents that had been upheld. The manager had dealt with these properly and taken action to ensure residents were not at risk, and that they received their medication as prescribed.
Staff felt there were sufficient training opportunities and felt well supported by the manager.
We saw that all areas of the home were clean and there were no offensive odours. Regular audits were completed for the prevention and control of infection.
Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. We did not see anyone waiting for support during our inspection. People confirmed that they did not need to wait for staff assistance when support was required. Staff told us they were able to access additional staff when required, such as if a staff member was off sick.
The manager had held a meeting for people and their relatives to discuss their views of the home. They carried out regular checks throughout the home to assess the quality of the service provided. We also saw the home had carried out a satisfaction survey carried out in June 2013.
We reviewed the care files of three people who used the service and found evidence that there were procedures in place to ensure their consent was gained in relation to the care provided for them.
We saw that care plans identified the needs of the person and included information on managing identified risk issues.
We spoke with five members of staff, three of whom told us they felt supported in their work and the manager was very supportive and accessible. All staff we spoke with told us they were confident in carrying out their responsibilities and one staff member told us they worked as part of a team. We saw evidence that staff were appropriately qualified to support the needs of people living at Hazeldene.
We found the food provided a nutritionally balanced meal with fresh ingredients being used. People were provided with a choice of meals and systems were in place to address issues around the risks of inadequate nutrition.
We found that there were effective systems in place for complaints to be identified, received and handled.