Archived: Highfield Hall

Updated 31 August 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. This was a comprehensive inspection.

The inspection took place on 18 and 19 July 2018 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector, one specialist advisor and two experts by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The specialist advisor was a nurse.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including previous inspection reports, complaints, safeguarding concerns and notifications we had received from the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We contacted five community healthcare professionals who were involved with the service for their comments, including community nurses and a podiatrist. We also contacted Lancashire County Council contracts team, Rochdale Borough Council care management team and Healthwatch Lancashire for feedback about the service.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with sixteen people who lived at the service and five people’s visiting relatives. We also spoke with five care staff, two nurses, a member of the domestic staff, an activities co-ordinator, the registered manager and the regional manager. We looked in detail at the care records of four people who lived at the service. In addition, we looked at service records including staff recruitment, supervision and training records, policies and procedures, complaints and compliments records, audits of quality and safety, fire safety and environmental health records.

Updated 31 August 2018

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Highfield Hall on 18 and 19 July 2018. The first day was unannounced.

Highfield Hall is registered to provide accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 75 people. This includes older people, younger adults, people with mental ill health and people living with dementia. Accommodation is provided over two floors. There are three separate units; a nursing unit, a residential unit and a unit specifically for people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 66 people living at the home.

The service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and we looked at both during this inspection.

At the last inspection on 7, 8 and 12 June 2017, we found two breaches of the regulations. These related to appropriate action not always being taken to manage people’s risks and a lack of sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Following our inspection, the provider sent us an action plan and told us that all actions would be completed by 25 September 2017.

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider was meeting all regulations reviewed.

Most people who lived at the home and their relatives were happy with staffing levels. They told us staff provided them with support when they needed it.

Records showed that staff had been recruited safely and the staff we spoke with understood how to protect people from abuse or the risk of abuse.

Staff received an effective induction and appropriate training. People who lived at the service and their relatives felt that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs

People told us the staff who supported them were caring and respected their right to privacy and dignity. They told us staff encouraged them to be as independent as they could be and we saw evidence of this during the inspection.

People received appropriate support with nutrition and hydration and their healthcare needs were met. Referrals were made to community healthcare professionals to ensure that people received appropriate support.

We received mixed feedback about the meals available at the home. We discussed this with the registered manager, who provided evidence to show that concerns expressed about the meals at the home were being addressed and improvements were being made.

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 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.

None of the people living at the home that we spoke with had made a complaint but told us they would feel able to. One person’s relatives told us they had raised concerns and were not happy with the response they had received.

The registered manager regularly sought feedback from people living at the home and their relatives about the support they received. We saw evidence that she used the feedback received to develop and improve the service.

We received mixed feedback about how the service was being managed. However, most people felt it was being managed well.

Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and felt she was approachable and supportive.

A variety of audits and checks were completed regularly by the registered manager and the regional manager. We found that the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were being maintained at the home.