Hagley Place

Hagley Place is a residential service providing support with personal care or nursing needs for older people. The service can accommodate up to 60 people although at the time of the inspection there were 58 people living there including people living with dementia. The home is a purpose built two storey building.

Peoples experience of using the service:

People were cared for by staff in a way that kept them safe and protected them from avoidable harm. Enough staff were available to respond to people’s needs in a timely manner. People received their medicines when they needed them, and systems were in place to ensure that medicines were stored and administered safely and that adequate supplies were available. Accidents and Incidents were investigated, and measures were taken to prevent re-occurrences. The premises were clean, and staff knew and followed infection control principles.

The service was effective. Peoples needs were assessed and planned and delivered in accordance with legislation and best practise. Staff were well trained and knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported. Balanced and nutritious meals were served, and people were complimentary about the quality of the food. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests, the policies and systems in the service supported this practise.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and caring, the atmosphere in the home was friendly and relaxed. We observed staff interacting with people as equals. People were involved in making decisions about their care and were supported to maintain their independence.

There were systems to ensure care was responsive. People received care in accordance with their needs and preferences. People were supported to maintain contact with their friends and families. There were opportunities for social stimulation. People felt their concerns and complaints would be listened to and responded to. People had plans relating to end of life care decisions where required.

People gave us positive feedback about the quality of care they received. The feedback on the leadership of the service and the registered manager from people and staff was positive. There were effective governance systems in place to monitor the quality of service and the health, safety of welfare of people.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published July 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Hagley Place provides accommodation and personal care for up to 60 people. At the time of our inspection there were 41 people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Care was person centred with people having good relationships with staff.

Staff had training and support to enable them to effectively meet the needs of the people living at the home. There were sufficient numbers of experienced and well trained staff to ensure people were supported safely and people’s health needs responded to quickly. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines in line with their prescription.

People knew the registered manager and the provider. People felt that if they had any concerns they were able to speak with the registered manager or staff. The registered manager and provider welcomed people's views and opinions and acted upon them.

People felt safe and knew how to raise concerns. Staff felt comfortable to raise any concerns about people’s safety and understood about how to keep people safe.

People enjoyed the food and had the support they needed to enjoy their food and drinks safely. People were able to make choices about the food and drink they wanted. There was a choice of freshly prepared nutritious food.

People's health needs were monitored and changes were made to people's care in response to any changes in their needs. People had access to other health professionals and were referred to them by the registered manager if there were any concerns about their health needs.

There were a range of checks to make sure that good standards of care and support were maintained. Feedback from the people and relatives was gathered on a regular basis and where any actions were identified these were actioned quickly.

Everyone we spoke with told us they were satisfied with their care. People who used the service and their representatives were able to contribute to their care plans. These reflected their personal preferences. There was evidence that the home worked well with other community health professionals and clinical specialists outside the home. This helped to ensure the best care was made available to individuals. People told us that they enjoyed the food and drink provided within the home. They were able to choose what they wanted to eat from the menu.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. This was because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify potential abuse and acted appropriately.

There was an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place.

We found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

We found that admission assessments and care plans had now been agreed by people using the service or their representatives. A system was in place to obtain consent on behalf of people who were deemed to lack the capacity to give it themselves. However, there was still no routine assessment to identify who might lack decision making capacity in advance of a decision needing to be made.

We found that there had been significant improvements in the training and supervision of staff. Induction programmes for new staff were properly supervised and completed. We saw that regular meaningful supervision meetings were being held for all staff.

Staff told us that training courses were now much more readily available and that they felt better supported by the management.

We found that care plans were up to date and that appropriate risk assessments had been carried out to ensure that people were kept safe. However, none of the people had indicated on their admission assessments or care plans that they agreed to the care and treatment being offered. We also found that advanced directives were not properly completed.

The home had an interim manager in place at the time of the visit. Staff told us that they had not received any formal supervision since the home opened four months ago. We also found that probation and training records were incomplete. Most of the staff had not been asked to provide evidence of qualifications they had obtained in previous jobs.