You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 July 2018

This inspection took place over two days on 23 and 24 May 2018. The first day was unannounced and the second day was announced.

The last inspection of the service was carried out in April 2017 and during that inspection we found breaches of regulations in relation to the safe management of medication, consent to care and assessing and monitoring the quality and safety of the service. Following the last inspection, we asked the registered provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led, to at least good.

During this inspection we found the required improvements had been made.

Hurst park Court 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. Hurst park Court accommodates up to 41 people who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 40 people using the service. The service provides accommodation over two floors.

The service did not have a registered manager; however, a manager was in post and they had applied to CQC to become the 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Improvements had been made so that people received their medication on time and in the right way. All medication was safely stored and accounted for. There was sufficient stock available so that people received their prescribed medicines at the right times. Rooms used for storing medication were appropriately ventilated, clean and well organised. Records were in place with instructions for staff on the use of medication including the application of topical creams and pain relief patches and the use of ‘As required’ (PRN) medication. Audits showed the management of medication had improved and that the improvements had been sustained.

Improvements had been made as to how the rights of people were assessed and recorded under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s mental capacity had been assessed and plans put in place to guide staff on ensuring people’s rights were protected within the law. Records demonstrated that best interest decisions were made with the involvement of people and relevant others.

Improvements had been made to how some aspects of the quality and safety of the service were monitored. The registered provider's quality assurance framework was followed effectively. The required checks were carried out on areas of the service at the required intervals. Action plans were developed and followed through for areas of improvement identified.

People felt safe living at the service. Staff completed training and had access to advice and guidance about safeguarding people. Staff understood the different types of abuse and indicators of abuse and were confident about reporting any safeguarding concerns. Records showed that appropriate safeguarding referrals were promptly made and action was taken to protect people from further risk of abuse. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and mitigated, this included risks associated with aspects of people’s care and the environment.

The environment and equipment people used was clean and hygienic and there was a pleasant smell throughout the building. Cleaning schedules were in place and being followed. Staff followed good infection prevention and control practices. This included the use of appropriate bins for disposing of clinical waste and the use personal protective equipment (PPE) to help minimise the spread of infection.

Staff were recruited safely.

Inspection areas



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was safe.

Improvements were made so that people received their medicines on time and in the right way.

Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people�s needs and keep them safe.

People felt safe living at the service. People were safeguarded from abuse and the risk of abuse. Risks to people were assessed and mitigated.



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was effective.

Decisions made on behalf of people who lacked capacity were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The environment was designed and adapted to meet people�s needs. Parts of the service provided stimulation and wayfinding for people living with dementia.

People�s nutritional and hydration needs were assessed and understood. People enjoyed a variety of food and drink to meet their needs and choices.

Staff were provided with training and support they needed for their role and to meet people�s needs.



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect, kindness and compassion and their independence was promoted.

People were provided with emotional support with good outcomes.

Staff used their knowledge of people to engage them in discussions of interest and people enjoyed laughter and banter with staff.

Personal and confidential information about people was treated in confidence.



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Care was assessed and planned with the full involvement of people and relevant others. Care plans clearly reflected people�s needs and wishes.

People were given opportunities throughout each day and night to engage in activities based around their hobbies and interests.

People, family members and others had information about how to complain and were confident about doing so if they were unhappy about anything.



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was well-led.

The processes for monitoring the quality and safety of the service were effective following improvements made.

The leadership of the service promoted an open and positive culture which was felt by all.

People and others were involved in the running and development of the service and their views were listened to and acted upon.