Hartfield House Rest Home

Updated 1 September 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 7 and 9 August 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information we held about the home, including previous inspection reports. We contacted the local authority to obtain their views about the care provided. We considered the information which had been shared with us by the local authority and other people, looked at notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we reviewed the records of the home. These included three staff recruitment files, training and supervision records, medicine records, complaint records, accidents and incidents, quality audits and policies and procedures along with information in regard to the upkeep of the premises.

We also looked at four care plans and risk assessments along with other relevant documentation to support our findings. This included ‘pathway tracking’ people living at the home. This is when we check that the care detailed in individual plans matches the experience of the person receiving care. It is an important part of our inspection, as it allows us to capture information about a sample of people receiving care.

During the inspection, we spoke with nine people who lived at the home, three visitors, and eight staff members, this included the registered manager and provider. We also spoke with three health care professionals who visited the service.

We spent time observing people in areas throughout the home and were able to see the interactions between people and staff. We watched how people were being supported by staff in communal areas. This included the lunchtime meals.

Updated 1 September 2018

We inspected Hartfield House on 7 and 9 August 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. We previously inspected the home in May 2017 where we found improvements were needed to ensure risks associated with peoples’ complex health needs were well managed. We also found improvements were needed to ensure daily notes and other documentation was consistently completed. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

Hartfield 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.

Hartfield House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection 19 people were living at the home. People living at the home were older people who had a range of needs associated with old age and their health. Some people were living with the early stages of dementia.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. They knew people well and had a good understanding of their health and care needs, choices and interests. Staff worked hard to ensure people received good quality care that was person-centred. There were a range of activities taking place and people were supported to keep busy and engaged throughout the day. They were able to continue their own interests and hobbies. People were relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. People’s dignity and privacy was respected. The company statement, “Care like family” was evident throughout the inspection.

Before people moved into the home assessments were completed. This helped ensure their needs and choices could be met. Information from these assessments were then used to develop care plans and risk assessments. These were regularly reviewed. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and the risks associated with supporting people and these were well managed.

There were enough staff working each day to meet people's needs. Safe recruitment practices were followed to ensure staff were appropriate to work at the home. Staff had received training they needed and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service. This included the care of people with specific health problems such as diabetes. Training was regularly updated.

People were supported to eat and drink a variety of freshly cooked meals and drinks each day. Their health was monitored and staff responded when health needs changed by contacting appropriate healthcare professionals.

Systems were in place to ensure accidents and incidents were well managed and actions taken to prevent reoccurrence. Staff understood how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and discrimination. Systems were in place to ensure medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and demonstrated an understanding of the legal requirements.

People and staff were asked for their opinions on the service and whether they were happy at the home. Staff felt supported within their roles and told us the registered manager had an ‘open door’ policy and they could discuss any concerns or problems with them.

There were a range of audits and checks in place. These were used to identify where improvements were needed across the service. There was a complaints policy in place and people and visitors told us they would raise any concerns with staff.