We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lord Hardy Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Lord Hardy Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff were supervised and monitored to ensure they followed infection control guidelines, and staff had received appropriate training in this area.
The cleaning schedule for the home had been enhanced to maintain people's safety.
Procedures for entering the home were well managed and visitors were tested for COVID-19 before meeting with people living at the home. Appropriate visiting areas had been set up.
Risk assessments had been completed and mitigating action taken to promote the health and wellbeing of high-risk staff.
Action was taken to keep friends and families in touch; this was also incorporated into activities at the home, where people were supported to make cards and take photographs for their loved ones.
All staff and people were regularly tested in line with government current COVID-19 testing program.
Lord Hardy Court provides personal care and intermediate care for up to 60 older people, including those living with dementia. The home consists of four units and is located in the Rotherham suburb of Rawmarsh. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people using the service.
People's experience of using this service:
People told us they received a good service and felt safe. Accidents and incidents were recorded, and risk assessments were in place. The registered manager understood their responsibilities about safeguarding and staff had been appropriately trained. Arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines although the increased frequency of medication audits would help identify minor recording errors in a more timely way.
People received planned and co-ordinated person-centred care which was appropriate and inclusive for them.
There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.
People were supported with good nutrition and could access appropriate healthcare services. People's wellbeing was monitored and promoted.
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. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support.
People's needs were assessed before they started using the service. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people's independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.
The registered manager and staff team supported the values of promoting choice, control, independence and inclusion. People were supported to achieve their own goals and be safe.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The provider had good oversight of the service, using their monitoring processes to make sure people received a good quality and safe service.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 01 February 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 re inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Lord Hardy Court provides mainly respite and intermediate care for up to 60 older people, including those living with dementia. It also supports a small number of people on a permanent basis. The home consists of four units, and is located in the Rotherham suburb of Rawmarsh. At the time of our inspection there were 51 people using the service.
The service did not have a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. However, the acting manager told us they had begun the process to register with us to become the registered manager for the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
The home was clean and generally well decorated, with a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. People we spoke with made positive comments about how staff delivered care and said they were happy with the way the home was managed, as well as the facilities available. We saw staff supported people in a caring, responsive and friendly manner, while including them in decision making. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible, while taking into consideration their abilities and any risks associated with their care.
People told us they felt the home was a safe place to live and work. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding people from abuse, and were able to explain the procedures to follow should there be any concerns of this kind. Assessments identified any potential risks to people, such as falls, and care files contained management plans to reduce these risks.
Medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure they were administered correctly. We found the temperatures of fridges and medication storerooms were within acceptable limits; however these had not been consistently recorded on each unit to ensure temperatures remained within the safe limits for storing medication. We saw people either managed their own medication, or were assisted by staff who had been trained to carry out this role.
Overall there was enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home at the time of our inspection. The recruitment process was robust and 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 and periodic support sessions to help them meet the needs of the people who used the service, while developing their knowledge and skills.
People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. Specialist diets were provided if needed and the people we spoke with said they were happy with the meals provided. However, we saw that on the unit for people living with dementia, some people had to wait for assistance to eat their lunch. The manager told us they were addressing this.
People’s needs had been assessed before they stayed at the home. If someone was admitted at short notice staff had collated as much information as possible prior to, and on admission. We saw people had been involved in planning their care, as well as on-going reviews. Care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences and had been updated regularly to ensure they reflected people’s changing needs. However, we noted that new information had not been incorporated into one person’s risk assessment and best interest documentation in another file was incomplete.
The home did not have a dedicated activity co-ordinator to facilitate a structured programme of activities. We found care staff aimed to provide social activities to stimulate people when they had time, but provision was spasmodic. Staff told us they were often too busy to facilitate regular activities so often relied on volunteers and outside entertainers to provide social activities. People told us they had enjoyed the activities they had participated in.
The company’s complaints policy was available to people using or visiting the service. We saw that when concerns had been raised these had been investigated and resolved promptly. The people we spoke with raised no concerns.
There was a system in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided and the general facilities available. We also saw a structured audit system had been used to check if company policies had been followed and the premises were safe and well maintained. Where improvements had been identified action plans had been put in place to address shortfalls. However, the audits had not identified shortfalls such as the medication storage temperatures not being consistently recorded.
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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
Lord Hardy Court is a 60 bedded residential care home for older people with care and support needs, including those living with dementia. Accommodation is divided into four separate units, with facilities including a hair salon, a cafeteria and a ballroom. It is located close to Rotherham town centre. When we inspected the service in August 2013 we found no concerns.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
This inspection was unannounced. During the visit we spoke with 17 people who used the service and 12 friends and family members, who were visiting at the time.
At this inspection we saw there were systems to make sure people were protected from the risk of harm. Staff knew about safeguarding and we saw concerns reported had been dealt with appropriately, which helped to keep people safe.
People we spoke with told us staff were very nice and easy to talk to. They and their relatives and friends also told us they felt involved in their care and support.
Staff were following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision and the registered manager had previously made applications under the Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for authorisation in the case of one person whose liberty had been restricted.
There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs.
Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink.
People had individual personal plans that were centred on their needs and preferences and had a good level of information, which explained how to meet each person’s needs.
There were activities available and this was an area the team were working on improving. Additionally, a local business was funding work to the garden, which would make it safer, more accessible, and more ‘dementia friendly’.
We saw that staff were respectful and made sure people’s privacy and dignity was maintained.
People said they felt comfortable to raise any concerns with staff. The service learned from incidents and from people’s feedback and used this as an opportunity for improvement.
Staff told us the management team were very supportive and approachable and the team had supported each other through staffing changes a recent restructure had brought.
We asked people about their experience of being cared for at Lord Hardy Court, and their views were all positive. One person said: 'They [the staff] are lovely, I can't fault them.' Another person said that staff knew all their needs. One person who was using the service at the time of the inspection told us: 'They are very good.' Another person said they were very happy with the care they were receiving.
There were resources available to all staff in relation to safeguarding, including an information guide that was on display throughout the home. We checked team meeting minutes and saw that safeguarding issues were discussed in team meetings. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing.
The provider was undertaking a comprehensive restructure of the way they provide care and staff the home. Staff said despite a current reorganisation of the service, the manager of the home was particularly supportive. They added that their manager made sure they were given information about the changes in a timely way.
Audits were regularly undertaken, looking at a range of aspects of service delivery. Where audits identified areas for improvement, action plans were devised and implemented.
Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.
The facilities throughout the home were clean and well maintained with appropriate floor and surface coverings. Detailed hand washing procedure information was displayed over the sinks and there were hand washing facilities available for staff and visitors within each of the four units.
Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work, and there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.
Staff we spoke with could describe the complaints procedure and were confident in their knowledge of how to raise concerns or make a complaint. The provider had information available to staff about how to recognise and deal with complaints.