The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Hurlfield View

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

203 Gleadless Common, Gleadless, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S12 2UU (0114) 239 9633

Provided and run by:
Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust

All Inspections

4 May 2016

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 4 May 2016. The home was previously inspected in December 2014 when we found two breaches of regulations. These were regarding the safe management of medicines and gaining people’s consent to care and treatment. Following that inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to these breaches. This inspection was undertaken to check that they had followed their plan, and to confirm that they now met all of the legal requirements.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for 'Hurlfield View' on our website at www.cqc.org.uk'

Hurlfield View (resource centre) is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people living with dementia. The centre provides periods of respite care and works with local community teams where additional assessment and support is required. Four of the 20 beds are allocated to people who are referred to the service by the dementia rapid response team.

The service had a registered manager in post 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider had addressed both breaches found at the last inspection.

People who used the service, and the visitors we spoke with, told us they were happy with how care and support was provided at the home. They spoke positively about the staff and the way the home was managed. A relative told us, “They [staff] have been marvellous.” We observed staff supporting people in a caring, responsive and friendly manner. They encouraged people to be as independent as possible while taking into consideration any risks associated with their care.

People told us they felt safe living and working at the home. We saw there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding people and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made. Assessments identified any potential risks to people and plans were in place to ensure people’s safety.

At our last inspection we identified shortfalls in the way medication was managed. At this inspection we found medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure they were administered safely.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a satisfactory understanding and knowledge of this, and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if a DoLS application was required. However, records lacked comprehensive detail about best interest decisions as to whether or not a DoLS application was required.

There was enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs, but some people felt additional staff would be beneficial at key times, such as in the afternoons and evenings.

There was a recruitment system in place that helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Staff had received a structured induction into how the home operated, and their job role, at the beginning of their employment. They had access to a varied training programme that met the needs of the people using the service.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. The people we spoke with said they were very happy with the meals provided and confirmed they were involved in choosing what they wanted to eat. We saw lunchtime on the day we visited was a relaxed and enjoyable experience for people who used the service.

People’s needs had been assessed before they went to stay at the home and we found they, and their relatives, had been involved in the planning their care. The care files we checked reflected people’s needs and preferences so staff had clear guidance on how to care for them.

People had access to activities which provided regular in-house stimulation, as well as occasional trips out into the community. People told us they enjoyed the activities they took part in.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed. We saw the complaints policy was easily available to people using and visiting the service. The people we spoke with said they had no complaints, but said they would feel comfortable speaking to staff if they had any concerns. When concerns had been raised they had been investigated and resolved in a timely manner.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. However, shortfalls identified by the registered manager in their audits had not been addressed by the provider and they had not ensured actions required were completed in a timely way. However we received information form the provider following our inspection that these were being actioned. This ensured there was oversight and governance by the provider.

4 December 2014.

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 04 December 2014 and was unannounced. We last inspected this service in September 2013 and found that it was meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.

Hurlfield View is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people living there. In September 2014, the service had expanded by creating four extra rooms. However, authorisation from the Care Quality Commission for this change had not been requested and granted at the time of the inspection. Following our inspection, the provider submitted an application which was subsequently approved and the changes were authorised.

There was a registered manager employed at the service. 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.

The provider was not meeting the requirements of the regulation to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way. Guidelines for PRN (as required) medicines were not sufficiently detailed and personalised. The stock taking and auditing process was not robust enough to minimise the risks associated with unsafe management of medicines.

Individual risk assessments were in place for people and staff knew how to report and record allegations of abuse. However, we saw one instance where an allegation made by a person at the service had not been recorded in line with the correct guidance.

We saw times where staff presence was lacking in certain areas, although there were sufficient staff numbers on the premises. This meant that on some occasions people were put at risk of harm by lack of appropriate supervision.

The provider was not meeting the requirements of the regulation to ensure that people consented to their care and treatment in line with relevant legislation. Training had not been provided to staff about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) although they had a general understanding of the Act. Bedrooms were locked when people were not in them. One person told us they would like their own key to their bedroom and did not know why they were unable to have one. The registered manager told us assessments were undertaken on admission about people having capacity to manage a key but these were not documented, nor undertaken in line with the MCA 2005. Therefore they did not evidence that any decision made was in the person’s best interest.

Improvements were required to the current quality monitoring arrangements in place as these were not wholly effective. They had not identified all of the areas requiring attention that we found during our inspection such as the lack of staff presence and inconsistency with recording allegations.

Most people we spoke with were positive about the care they received and the staff approach towards them. Our observations showed that staff interaction was predominantly caring although we did see evidence of some negative interaction.

Staff told us they felt supported, had training that equipped them for their roles and received regular supervision. Supervision is an accountable, two-way process, which supports, motivates and enables the development of good practice for individual staff members. People at the service were supported to access healthcare and received assistance with nutrition where required.

Stimulation and activities were lacking on the morning of our visit but people told us about activities they undertook. This included singing, trips out, dominoes and entertainment. In the afternoon of our visit we saw dancing and singing take place for several hours in one of the lounges. The service sought to pro-actively link in with the community by way of a recent ‘Adopt a care home’ pilot whereby a local school was paired with Hurlfield View with children visiting people at the service and finding out them.

Staff felt supported by management and felt part of a team. They enjoyed working at the service and received feedback about the service via regular team meetings. The registered manager and staff worked pro-actively in partnership with other agencies.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

11 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we found people looked reasonably clean, tidy and we saw their personal care needs had been met. We talked with eight people who used the service. They told us they were happy living at the home, happy with the care they received, liked the staff who looked after them, and enjoyed their food. Some comments captured included, '[the staff] are nice people 'can't beat them 'its very good here', 'my bedroom is excellent' and '[the] food is smashing.'

During our inspection we conducted a tour of the premises and found it was clean, tidy and free of any unpleasant odours. There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found people's needs had been met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff.

We found there were effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We found there was a complaints process in place.

19 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We found the home was clean and had a warm and welcoming environment. We used informal observation to see how members of staff interacted with people who used services. Generally, we saw staff treated people with dignity and respect by using a positive, friendly and kind approach. We found people looked clean, tidy and had their personal care and welfare needs met.

We talked to two people who lived at the home during our inspection visit. Where people understood our questions people told us they were happy at the home, liked all the staff who looked after them, thought the home was kept clean and enjoyed their food. Some comments captured included, 'like it in here', '[staff] nice and friendly'.they're good carers', and 'good here'I'm well looked after'.