You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

This unannounced inspection was carried out on 26 and 27 June 2018. Hulton Care Centre is a two-storey detached building in Middleton, Greater Manchester. It is registered to provide accommodation for up to 28 people who require personal or nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living in the home.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 last inspected Hulton Care Centre in May 2016. At that inspection we found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) in that the recruitment records for new staff did not contain enough information to determine their suitability to work with vulnerable people. At this inspection we found that safe recruitment policies had been adopted, with all employment checks undertaken. The service was no longer in breach of the regulations.

People who used the service were supported in a friendly, relaxed and comfortable environment. They told us that they felt safe, and staff working at Hulton Care Centre understood how to ensure people’s safety and protect vulnerable adults from abuse. Potential environmental risks were assessed as an ongoing process to help prevent any accidents or injuries occurring.

The service used a dependency tool to determine how many workers would be required to meet people’s needs safely, and we saw that there were adequate staffing levels with a good mix of registered nurses and care assistants. Staff were well trained and induction methods allowed them to get to know the people who used the service and how they liked their needs to be met. Regular training and supervision sessions allowed staff to update their knowledge.

The home was clean and odour free. Staff understood how to prevent the spread of infection and were observed using personal protective equipment. There was a supply of disposable gloves and aprons available, and colour coded cleaning equipment minimised the risk of cross infection.

When accidents and incidents occurred, these were appropriately recorded and reviewed so that future reoccurrences could be avoided. We saw that there were safe systems in place to manage and administer medicines, with checks on a daily basis to minimise errors occurring. Care records indicated regular contact with health professionals such as doctors, district nurses, and occupational therapists. The service was attentive to peoples nutritional needs, and followed advice from Speech and Language therapists and dieticians to ensure that food was served following their instructions. The weather during our inspection was hot, and people were regularly offered a supply of cold drinks.

People’s choices were respected, and where they lacked capacity best interest decisions were clearly documented in case notes. Where people were unable to give their consent to receiving care and support, the appropriate deprivation of liberty orders were in place. Care plans gave good instruction to staff to ensure needs were met, and when we spoke with care staff they could tell us about the people they supported, but care plans did not always record their background, culture or preferences.

The service made good use of the space available; communal areas were well planned to allow separate areas for different social interactions. Although there was a lack of storage space for large equipment such as mobile hoists, when not in use these were stored where they would cause the least obstacle. Bedrooms were personalised and decorated in accordance with the person’s wishes. People were treated with kindness and respect. The service had recently achieved a Daisy award

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was safe.

There were sufficient, suitably trained staff who had been safely recruited, were available at all times to meet people's needs, and understood how to keep people safe from harm.

Suitable arrangements were in place to help safeguard people from abuse.

A safe system of medicine management was in place.

The home was clean and procedures were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were well trained and encouraged to develop their skills and knowledge.

Where people lacked the capacity to consent to care and treatment the appropriate authorisations were sought, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of consent.

People had good access to healthcare. Staff monitored their physical and mental health needs

Caring

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were friendly, welcoming and patient, and spent time sitting and talking with people who used the service,

Privacy and dignity were respected.

Staff were attentive to need and showed a good understanding of people’s likes and dislikes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans reflected people’s needs and wishes.

People were provided with activity and stimulation throughout the day.

How people wished to be supported at the end of their life was considered.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager in place who had promoted a homely and compassionate culture.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision, and good systems to audit the quality of care provision were in place.

People who used the service were able to provide feedback on the service and their ideas were taken into consideration.