You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The inspection took place on 9 and 22 January 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. This meant that the provider and staff did not know we were coming.

We last inspected the service in January 2017 and at that time identified breaches in two of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breaches were related to safe medicines management and good governance.

We took action by requesting the provider send us an action plan stating how and when they would achieve compliance. During this inspection we found there had been improvements made in line with the provider’s action plan. As a consequence of these improvements the service was no longer in breach of the regulations detailed above.

Hadrian Park 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.

Hadrian Park can accommodate up to 74 people in a two-storey purpose built building. At the time of this inspection there were 55 people using the service.

The service was divided into three units, Lilly, Chester and Poppy. The Lilly unit provided residential care on the ground floor whilst the Chester unit, also on the ground floor provided care for people living with dementia. Upstairs the Poppy unit provided accommodation for people who needed a higher level of support. The first floor was accessed by stairs or a passenger lift. There were four dining areas and a variety of communal living areas.

The service had a manager in place. They had submitted an application to become registered manager and that process was underway 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.

At the last inspection we identified that people’s medicines were not always managed safely. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in the records for oral medicines, however improvements were still needed for the records of topical preparations and the guidance for when required medicines. We have made a recommendation about this.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place and appropriate pre-employment checks were undertaken.

There was a sufficient number of staff on duty to care for people safely. People’s dependency levels were calculated regularly and used to determine the number of staff needed for each shift.

Care records contained detailed risk assessments. People had individual personal emergency evacuation plans in place. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to look for patterns or trends. Regular maintenance checks and repairs were carried out and all areas of the service were clean and tidy.

The majority of staff were up to date with training and additional training courses linked to the needs of the people using the service had been completed by staff. Some training was not included on the matrix and this made keeping track of training more difficult.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Requests for DoLS authorisations were being submitted appropriately. Capacity assessments were being undertaken and best interest decisions were being recorded.

Staff felt well supported and regular supervision sessions and annual appraisals were planned.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and had access to health professionals when needed.

People were happy with the food they received. There was a varied menu contain

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was not always safe.

Medicines, including controlled drugs, were stored safely, administered appropriately and disposed of correctly. There had been an improvement to medicine records but further work was still needed.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place and appropriate pre-employment checks were undertaken.

The service was staffed at an appropriate level to safely meet people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was effective.

Most staff were up to date with training but records did not accurately reflect all training information.

Staff felt well supported. The manager had an annual planner in place for staff supervision sessions.

DoLS requests were being submitted appropriately and best interest decisions were being made where people lacked capacity.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and their nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was caring.

People were happy with the care they received. Relatives were welcome to visit at any time and were involved in planning their family member’s care.

Staff treated people with dignity and promoted independence wherever possible.

Advocacy support from external agencies was available should anyone require it.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans contained information to help staff support people in a person centred way and care was delivered in a way that best suited the individual.

An effort was made to engage people in activities that were meaningful to them.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint if necessary.

End of life care plans were in place and staff had received the appropriate training to support people at this time.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was well led.

Records contained accurate and up to date information relating to people’s care needs.

The quality of the service was monitored by system of audits. Feedback was sought from people using the service and their relatives and any issues identified were acted upon.

Staff meetings took place every two months and staff felt able to discuss any issues with the manager.

The service had close links with healthcare professionals who gave positive feedback regarding the knowledge and cooperation of management and staff.