You are here

The Harefield Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 26 March 2019

About the service:

• The Harefield Care Home offers accommodation and personal or nursing care for up to 40 older people, some of whom are living with the experience of dementia. The accommodation is provided in two ground floor units in a purpose-built building. There were 37 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

• The Harefield Care Home is part of HC-One Oval Limited, a large organisation who owns over 300 care homes across the United Kingdom.

People’s experience of using the service:

• People were supported by staff who did not always receive training the provider identified as mandatory. The training records confirmed that some training was out of date.

• Staff stated they did not always feel supported by the management. We saw that, although they received supervision, this was not always regular.

• People’s records showed that staff did not always use respectful language and did not always demonstrate an understanding about the person’s needs. Some staff did not know about a person’s individual communication needs although these were recorded in the person’s care plan.

• People’s records about personal safety checks were not always completed appropriately and as stated in the care plans. These included repositioning charts and pressure mattress checks.

•The provider had systems in place to help ensure people who used the service received quality care and were safe from avoidable harm. However, these were not always effective because they had failed to identify the above shortfalls we found during our inspection.

• There was evidence that people were offered a range of activities and an activity plan was displayed. However, we saw that most people stayed in their room and were not aware of activities on offer because they were not informed.

• Care and support plans were comprehensive and detailed. They contained all the necessary information about the person and how they wanted their care provided. However, they did not always evidence people’s involvement in their care.

• Risk assessments were in place. These identified all risks that people faced and included guidelines for staff to follow to help ensure people were safe from harm.

• People’s healthcare needs were met because staff took appropriate action when concerns were identified.

• Medicines were safely managed. There were systems for ordering, administering and monitoring medicines. Staff received training in the administration of medicines and had their competencies checked.

• People’s end of life wishes were recorded in their care plan. This included their religious and cultural needs and where they wanted to be when they reached the end of their life.

• Recruitment checks were carried out before staff started working for the service and included checks to ensure staff had the relevant previous experience and qualifications.

• People were protected by the provider’s arrangements in relation to the prevention and control of infection. The home was clean and staff were provided with protective equipment.

• The environment was homely and bright and was suited to the individual needs of people, such as people living with the experience of dementia.

• The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people lacked the capacity to make particular decisions about their care, their mental capacity was assessed. Where necessary, people were being deprived of their liberty lawfully.

• The provider had processes for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents. We saw that these included actions taken and lessons learned.

• Rating at last inspection: The service was registered in 2017 and had only been inspected once before. At the last inspection the service was rated requires improvement in the key questions of ‘safe’ and ‘well led’ and overall (19 and 20 March 2018). During this inspection we found the service had not made the required improvements and remained requires improvement

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 March 2019

The service was safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 26 March 2019

The service was not always effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 March 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 26 March 2019

The service was not always responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 26 March 2019

The service was not always well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.