You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

We inspected James Hirons Care Home on 9 May 2017. The inspection visit was unannounced.

James Hirons Care Home provides accommodation for people in a residential setting and is registered to provide care for up to 23 people. There were 19 people living at the home when we inspected the service. People were cared for over two floors. On the ground floor there were a number of communal areas where people could choose to spend their time. There was one dining room split over two different levels, three conservatory areas, a library, a large garden area, and two separate lounge areas at the home.

A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was an experienced registered manager in post at the time of our inspection who had been at the service for several years.

People felt secure in the home and safe with the staff who provided their care and support. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and manage any risks associated with their care. Staff told us they would not hesitate to report any concerns they had about people's health or wellbeing. People had call bells and pendant alarms to hand so they could easily call for assistance.

People were at ease with staff and enjoyed being with them. Staff spoke with people in a warm and respectful manner, engaged them in conversations which were of interest to them and listened to what people had to say. Staff promoted people's dignity by supporting them with personal care in a way that was meaningful to them.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide safe, effective care and staff told us they had enough time to spend with people. The provider had a robust recruitment and selection process to ensure staff with the right skills and values worked in the home.

Staff received training and support so they felt confident in their roles. Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They supported people’s decision making by offering them choices and respected the decisions they made about their care. Staff used their knowledge of people to provide care that met individual needs and preferences.

Staff understood how to manage people’s specific healthcare needs and knew when to seek professional advice and support so people’s health and welfare was maintained. The provider’s procedures for the storage and administration of people’s medicines reflected good practice.

People were supported with their nutritional needs and they told us they enjoyed the food and drinks they were offered.

The home was well maintained and decorated and care had been taken to provide a relaxing, homely environment where people and their visitors felt welcomed. People were offered a range of activities that promoted physical activity, mental stimulation and social engagement.

There was an open and inclusive culture within the home. People, their relatives and staff felt informed and involved. Staff felt well supported and valued and described their relationship with the management team in positive terms.

There was a system of internal audits and checks completed within the home to ensure the safety and quality of service was maintained. The quality assurance system included asking people, visitors, relatives, and staff about their experience of the service so any areas where improvements were required could be identified.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was safe.

People felt safe with staff who understood their responsibility to report any concerns they had about people's well-being and safety. Care plans had been written to instruct staff how to manage and reduce risks to people's health. There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide safe and effective care, and spend time with people. The provider’s procedures for the storage and administration of people’s medicines reflected good practice.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training and support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to meet people's care and support needs safely and effectively. People's consent to care was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff supported people’s decision making by offering them choices. People enjoyed the food provided at the home and staff understood the importance of ensuring people had enough to drink to maintain their hydration. People were supported to maintain good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was caring.

The registered manager and staff team had a caring and empathetic approach to their work. Staff spoke with people in a warm and respectful manner and engaged them in conversations which were of interest to them. Staff worked with people to ensure they continued to do as much for themselves as possible to maintain some independence. The environment supported people’s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People felt care staff were responsive to their social and healthcare needs. People were offered opportunities to engage in activities that were meaningful to them. Some activities promoted physical well-being and others provided mental stimulation and social engagement. Staff used the information they knew about people to provide personalised care that met their individual needs. People had the information to raise a complaint if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was well-led.

There was an open and inclusive culture within the home. People were happy with the service provided, but felt able to approach the registered manager if they had any concerns. Staff understood what was expected of them and felt well supported. There was a planned schedule of improvements to ensure the environment continued to meet people's needs. There was a system of internal audits and checks to ensure the safety and quality of service was maintained.