We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hartford 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 Hartford Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
At the time of this inspection the home had an outbreak of Covid 19, essential care givers were visiting in the home the registered manager was following current guidance on visiting.
The layout of the premises ensured the risk of the spread of COVID-19 was reduced. PPE was readily available, and we observed staff wearing PPE as required.
We observed systems and processes in place, in line with guidance, to ensure visitors to the home did not introduce and spread Covid-19. All visitors, including professionals, were subject to a range of screening procedures, including showing evidence of Covid-19 vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the home was allowed.
Detailed risk assessments were in place for people who used the service which included guidance for staff to follow should the person display symptoms of COVID-19.
The care home was clean and hygienic. Frequently touched areas, such as door handles, handrails received enhanced cleaning.
The provider had an up to date infection control policy in place and carried out appropriate environmental audits. The provider ensured staff were kept up to date with government guidance.
Audits were carried out to ensure staff were following government guidance about the management of infection control during the COVID 19 pandemic.
Hartford Court is a care home (without nursing). People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Hartford Court can accommodate up to 60 older people in a spacious, specially designed, purpose built building which provided accommodation across two floors. Each floor could accommodate 30 people. On the day of the inspection visit 42 people were resident in the home. Some people were living with other associated conditions such as dementia and physical and sensory difficulties.
At the last inspection, on 21 April 2017 the service was rated as requires improvement in three domains, safe, responsive and well-led. It was rated as good in effective and caring. It was consequently rated as overall requires improvement.
There were breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to make improvements to the areas we identified as requiring attention. It was intended that any improvements made should be to at least a good rating.
We received a provider action plan on 22 June 2017 to tell us how they would meet the relevant legal requirements. That is; to demonstrate person centred care, reduce risks to people, to administer medicines safely and ensure people received a good level of care.
They told us they would complete these actions in July and August of 2017. We found that these actions had been completed.
At this inspection we found the service was rated as good in all domains and therefore overall good.
Why the service is rated good.
There is a registered manager running 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.
People, staff and visitors were protected from harm and the service was as safe as possible. The staff team were trained to maintain and promote people’s health, well-being and safety.
People were protected by staff who understood how to keep them safe and knew what action to take if they identified any concerns. They made sure that people were not subjected to any poor practice or abuse.
The service identified general risks and risks to individuals and appropriate action was taken to reduce them, as far as possible.
People benefitted from adequate staffing ratios which ensured there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s diverse individual needs safely. Recruitment systems were in place to make sure, that as far as possible, staff recruited were safe and suitable to work with people. People were supported to take their medicines, at the right times and in the right amounts by trained and competent staff. Individuals were encouraged to take some responsibility for their own medicines, as was safe and appropriate.
People were appropriately cared for by trained staff who were supported to make sure they could meet people’s varied and sometimes complex needs. Staff dealt effectively with people’s current and changing health needs. They worked closely with health and other professionals to ensure people received the best care possible.
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.
The whole management team with support from the provider had worked towards improving the quality of care and outcomes for people. People were supported by a caring and committed staff team who demonstrated interest and passion in their work. They met people’s needs with patience, kindness and compassion.
The service was person-centred and responded to people’s needs and preferences. Activity programmes were designed to meet people’s needs and interests. The computerised care planning system was detailed and individualised and further enhancements were planned. Care plans were regularly reviewed which ensured people’s needs were met and their equality and diversity was respected.
The registered manager was highly thought of and ensured the service was well-led. Staff and families of people who used the service described the registered manager and the management team as open, approachable and supportive. The management and staff teams ensured they adhered to the values of the provider and there was no discrimination relating to staff or people in the service. The quality of care the service provided was assessed, reviewed and improved upon where appropriate.
The service had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However in the week prior to our inspection the registered manger had left the service. The brand director for the provider was providing the management support until a manager was appointed.
This was the first inspection the service had received since it registered on 16 May 2016.
People told us they felt safe living at Hartford Court. Staff understood the principle of keeping people safe. However, risk assessments were in not always in place to ensure staff were aware of how to minimise the risks facing people. There were some errors with the medicines administration and recordings.
People felt the staffing levels met their needs in a timely way. Staff told us they felt well supported by each other and the management team. They received support and had a good programme of training. Recruitment checks had been completed before staff started work to ensure the safety of people.
Staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act but people’s records around best interests decisions needed to be improved. People enjoyed their meals and the chef was keen to ensure people received a positive dining experience. People were supported to access a range of health professionals.
People had their needs assessed before they moved into the service and efforts were made to ensure there was a good overall picture of the person. Care plans had been completed but these were basic in nature and had not been updated as necessary. People felt confident they could make a complaint and it would be responded to. Complaints were logged and there were recordings of investigations into complaints.
People felt the staff were caring, kind and compassionate. The home had an open culture where staff felt if they raised concerns they would be listened to. Staff felt supported by the management team and were clear about their roles and the values of the home. The management team had, during our inspection also noted some of the areas where we had identified a breach. They were disappointed their own quality assurance processes had not identified these breaches and were keen to look at where their processes had gone wrong.
We found 3 breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.