Archived: James Hirons Care Home

Updated 23 June 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection visit took place on 4 May 2016 and was unannounced. This inspection was conducted by one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is someone who has personal experience of using, or caring for someone who has used this type of service. We reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at information received from statutory notifications the provider had sent to us and information from the commissioners of the service. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Commissioners are representatives from the local authority who find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority.

We also reviewed the information in the provider’s information return (PIR). This is a form we asked the provider to send to us before we visited. The PIR asked the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they planned to make. We found the PIR reflected the service provided.

Some of the people who lived at the home were not able to tell us in detail, about how they were cared for and supported because of their complex needs. However, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with 11 people who lived at the home. We also spoke with three care staff, two kitchen staff, a member of the maintenance team, an activities co-ordinator, an administrative assistant and several members of the management team including the registered manager, the chairman of the board of trustees and a visiting trustee.

We looked at a range of records about people’s care including three care files. We also looked at other records relating to people’s care such as medicine records. This was to assess whether the care people needed was being provided.

We reviewed records of the checks the manager and the provider made to assure themselves people received a quality service. We also looked at personnel files for three members of care staff to check that safe recruitment procedures were in operation and staff received appropriate support to continue their professional development.

Updated 23 June 2016

We inspected James Hirons Care Home on 4 May 2016. The inspection visit was unannounced.

The service was last inspected on 15 April 2014 when we found the provider was compliant with the essential standards described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

James Hirons provides accommodation for people in a residential setting and is registered to provide care for up to 23 people. There were 20 people living at the home when we inspected the service. People were cared for over two floors. On the ground floor there were a number of communal areas where people could choose to spend their time. There was one dining room split over two different levels, two conservatory areas, a large garden area, and two separate lounge areas at the home.

A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was an experienced registered manager in post at the time of our inspection who had been at the service for several years. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.

The provider had recently changed their company status which came into effect from the 1 April 2016. The provider planned to register the new provider's information and company status with the CQC within three months of our inspection visit.

Staff received training in safeguarding adults and understood the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns. All necessary checks had been completed before new staff started work at the home to make sure, as far as possible, they were safe to work with the people who lived there. The manager and staff identified risks to people who used the service and took action to manage identified risks and keep people safe.

There were enough staff employed at the service to care for people safely and effectively. New staff completed an induction programme when they started work, to ensure they had the skills they needed to support people effectively. Staff received training and had regular meetings with their manager in which their performance and development was discussed.

People’s needs and their wishes were placed at the heart of the service. People planned their own care, with the support of their relatives and staff. This ensured their care plans matched their individual needs, abilities and preferences, from their personal perspective. People who used the service and their relatives, were encouraged to share their views about how the service was run.

Care staff treated people with respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with people who were important to them. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not unnecessarily restrict their freedom.

People were supported with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals where a need had been identified. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines were administered safely. People were encouraged to eat a balanced diet that took account of their preferences and, where necessary their nutritional needs.

People were supported in a range of activities, both inside and outside the home. Staff were caring and encouraged people to be involved in decisions about their life and their support needs. People made decisions about their environment and chose how their bedroom was decorated which made it personal to them.

The provider was proactive in developing and maintaining the home to increase people’s enjoyment in their surroundings and the quality of their lives. Quality assurance procedures were in place which included regular checks of people’s care plans, medicines administration and staff practice. Accidents, incidents and falls were investigated and actions taken to minimise the risks of a re-occurrence. There was a culture within the home to learn from feedback, audits, and incidents to continuously improve the service provided.