The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Hartfield House Rest Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

5 Hartfield Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN21 2AP (01323) 731322

Provided and run by:
Hartfield House Rest Home Limited

All Inspections

2 and 3 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Hartfield House Rest Home provides accommodation for up to 20 older people. There were 14 people living at the home at the time of the inspection. People required a range of care and support. Some people lived independent lives but required support for example with personal care and moving and walking safely. People were able to stay at the home for short periods of time on respite care or can choose to live at the home permanently. Staff provided end of life care with support from the community health care professionals but usually cared for people who needed prompting and minimal personal care support. People spoke well of the home and the staff. They told us they were happy living there.

There was currently no registered manager at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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. There was a manager in post who was in the process of registering with CQC to become a registered manager; they were also the registered person. The owner visited the home most days to support the manager and staff.

This was an unannounced inspection which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. It took place on 2 and 3 November 2015.

Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and choices however risks were not always safely managed and care plans did not reflect the care and support people. Individual risk assessments to maintain people’s health, safety and well-being were not in place for everyone. Nutritional assessments did not always contain information staff needed to support people.

People’s medicines were not always managed safely. There was no guidance for ‘as required’ medicines.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure only suitable people worked at the home. There were enough staff working at Hartfield House to meet people’s needs.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards however; there was no information about how people were able to make choices or decisions. Staff had a good understanding of abuse and how to protect people from the risks associated with abuse.

People were given choice about what they wanted to eat and drink and received food that they enjoyed. They were supported to maintain good health and had access to on-going healthcare support.

People were encouraged to make their own choices and maintain their independence. They and had their privacy and dignity respected and were complimentary about the staff who looked after them. People told us they did not have any complaints but would be happy to discuss them with the staff if they did.

The owner and manager were seen as approachable and supportive and took an active role in the day to day running of the home.

There were a number of breaches of the regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

9 April 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

To see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly.

There were policies and procedures in place that ensured people were protected against the risks associated with medicines.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Staff gave us an example of what actions had been taken where concerns had been identified to relation to an individual. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. One person told us. "I need more help at the moment but I couldn't have better care than I get here.'

We saw from training records that staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things when they wanted to. Our observations confirmed this. One person told us, 'They are wonderful, they have the patience of saints and nothing is too much trouble.'

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided that met their wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place.

People told us they were asked for their feedback on the service they received. We saw that a number of satisfaction surveys had been sent out the previous year. We saw that as a result of feedback received changes had been made to the menu and activities provided in the home. People and visitors told us if they had any concerns they spoke to the manager or senior member of staff on duty. They said any issues were dealt with immediately.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They said the manager and provider ensured they were aware of any changes that happened at the home. They told us it was an 'open door policy' and their views and concerns were listened to and taken into account.

2 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We spoke with people who lived in the home. One person told us 'Staff are good here, they consider you, you matter to them.' Other people spoken with told us they were happy living at Hartfield House and enjoyed the activities.

During our inspection we found that people were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Care plans were personalised and documented the needs of people. People were safeguarded against abuse as staff were trained, and displayed a good level of understanding of recognising and reporting abuse.

A complaints policy was in place. Evidence was seen that comments and complaints were listened to and resolved in a timely and appropriate manner.

17 April 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that the home was 'marvellous', 'very clean' and there were lots of activities provided. They said the staff were very friendly and the food was very good. One person said, 'If all elderly people lived in a place like this they would be very happy'. Another said the food was so good and the staff so welcoming that her family really enjoyed visiting.