Hatzfeld House

Updated 20 December 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) 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 Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by an inspector, an assistant inspector and an Expert by Experience over two days. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Hatzfeld House 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.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

The first day of the inspection was unannounced. We returned for a second day and the provider was aware we were returning.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included checking incidents the provider must notify us about, such as serious injuries and abuse. We sought feedback from the local authority, Healthwatch and professionals who work with the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

On this occasion, we had not asked the provider to send us a provider Information return (PIR). A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service. This includes what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. However, we offered the provider the opportunity to share information they felt was relevant.

During the inspection

We spoke with nine people who used the service and three relatives. We asked them about the quality of the care they received. We spoke with four care staff, the housekeeper, cook, administrator, deputy manager and the registered manager. We also spoke with two visiting healthcare professionals.

We reviewed a range of records. This included all or parts of records relating to the care of five people. We also viewed medicine administration records and records relating to the safety and management of the service.

After the inspection

We asked the registered manager to provide us with a variety of policies and procedures and additional information. All information was sent within the required timeframe. We used all this information to help form our judgements detailed within this report.

We also contacted a variety of health and social care professionals and asked them for their views of this service. We received four responses.

Updated 20 December 2019

About the service:

Hatzfeld House is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 42 people. Some of the people living at this home were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 32 people were living at this home.

People’s experience of using this service:

The risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and used to reduce risk. Most risk assessments reflected people’s needs. The registered manager acted quickly when we raised concerns about certain parts of the environment. These actions made people safer. People felt safe when staff supported them.

Staff understood how to act if they suspected people could be the victim of abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe. People’s medicines were managed, administered and stored safely. The home was clean and tidy, although some cleaning schedules had not been completed. Staff learned from mistakes to ensure people received safe care and support.

People’s needs were assessed in line with current best practice guidelines. Staff were well trained and felt supported by the registered manager to carry out their role effectively. People were given the support they needed to make healthy food choices. People had access to other health and social care agencies and professionals. People were supported to make decisions about their own health, such as deciding to quit smoking. People lived in an environment that was adapted and suitable for their needs.

People were supported to have maximum 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 practice.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and understood what was important to them. People were treated with dignity and respect by staff; although, some of the language used by staff to describe people was not dignified. Staff excelled at supporting people with their diverse needs and choice; people’s views were respected and acted on. People were supported to make decisions about their care needs and staff respected their wishes. People’s records were stored securely to protect their privacy.

People were provided with person-centred care and were encouraged and empowered to make decisions about their own lives. Independence was encouraged and staff understood what support people needed with their personal care. People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family and to meet people from their local community. This helped to reduce the risk of social isolation.

People had access to information in a format they could understand. This included in languages other than English where required. Complaints were handled appropriately and in-line with the provider’s complaints policy. People did not currently receive end of life care. People were supported to make decisions about the end of their life.

The home was managed by a caring and dedicated registered manager who always put the experiences of people and staff first. People lived in homely environment that was welcoming and calm. All staff understood their roles and how they contributed to the success of the home. Person-centred care was at the heart of everything staff did. Staff enjoyed their role and felt their views mattered. People’s views were welcomed and valued, and action was taken to address any concerns. Quality assurance processes were in place to continually assess the standard of the care provided.

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 Outstanding. (Published 11 May 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.