We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hatch Mill 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 Hatch Mill, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
All visitors to the home passed through the porch where they were required to leave their contact details. Visitors were asked to use hand gel, wear a face mask and have their temperature checked before entering the main building.
People had contact with family and friends by telephone, video calls and window visits. Changes in visiting arrangements were communicated to people and their visitors on the organisation's website, by email and in person.
Staff worked in teams which were allocated to either the ground or first floor. Teams included care staff, housekeeping staff and kitchen staff. The activities coordinator ran separate events and social groups for people on each floor. Staff made greater use of electronic record keeping for shift handovers to maintain social distance.
New people moving into the home were supported to self isolate when they first moved in. Specific care staff were allocated to new residents, supporting them to settle in and reducing risks of cross infection.
There were equipment stations around the home for staff to have easy access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and to dispose of used PPE safely and quickly after use. The frequency and extent of cleaning activity had been increased throughout the home with extra attention to high contact areas.
People’s experience of using this service: People told us they felt staff and had enough staff to support them. Staff were knowledgeable about risks and how to support people safely. People’s medicines were managed and administered safely and people’s healthcare needs were met by trained nurses. Staff had received training and supervision for their roles and staff spoke positively about the support they got from management.
People said they got on well with the management team and had confidence in them that any issues they raised would be addressed. There were systems to involve people in their care as well as in the running of the service. People were consulted on food and activities and we received positive feedback on these aspects of their care. There was a variety of activities at the service as well as outings, events and regular fundraising initiatives the provider was involved with.
People gave positive feedback of the caring nature of staff and this matched our observations. Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and dignity as well as encouraging them to maintain and develop their independence. People’s care was planned in a personalised way with plans in place for end of life care. People had consented to their care and where they were unable to do so, the correct legal process was followed.
Rating at last inspection: Requires Improvement (Published 6 April 2018)
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service and will return to inspect again in line with our policies.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Hatch Mill is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Hatch Mill accommodates 48 people in one adapted building, over two floors. One floor provides residential care and the other provides nursing care to people. At the time of our inspection there were 42 people living at the home. The home supported older people, some who had physical disabilities and long term medical conditions. Some people at the home were living with dementia.
There was 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.
We identified shortfalls in record keeping that meant that clinical risks were not always accurately monitored. Plans on how to manage risks did not always contain enough detail to guide staff. The provider took action to address this immediately following the inspection. We made a recommendation for the provider to review their systems for monitoring individual clinical risks.
Care was planned in a person-centred way and care plans were regularly reviewed. Despite the shortfalls in record keeping for some risks, most individual risks were identified and managed to keep people safe. Staff routinely involved people in their care and met their preferences and desired routines. We received a large amount of negative feedback about the quality of the food on offer; we made a recommendation about the quality of the food on offer at the home.
People were involved in the running of the home and their feedback was regularly sought. Meetings took place to provide opportunities for people to make suggestions or give feedback and the provider conducted regular surveys. People’s had consented to their care and treatment and staff had followed the guidance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We made a recommendation about the documentation kept with regards to the MCA.
Staff had received training for their roles and told us that they felt supported by management. Regular supervisions and appraisals took place and the provider had systems of communication in place to enable staff to pass on important messages regarding people’s care. Staff worked alongside healthcare professionals to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met.
People received their medicines safely and in line with best practice. Nursing staff had support to maintain their clinical competencies and revalidate their registrations with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). The provider had effective systems and training in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection and people lived in a clean home environment. The premises design was suited to the needs of the people who lived at the home.
Staff were caring and took an interest in people. Staff knew people well and found ways to improve people’s lives and enable them to develop independence. People’s wishes and preferences for end of life care were clearly documented and met. Staff provided care in a way that was respectful of people’s privacy and dignity.
The provider had links with the local community and people benefitted from fund raising work that took place. Fundraising was used to develop the home and gardens in a way that provided people with restful spaces and areas to exercise in. The provider carried out regular audits to monitor the quality of the care that people received. There was a wide range of activities taking place at the home and people told us that they enjoyed these and could make suggestions in this area.