Archived: Hopton Court

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them as well as from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

We found that the service was safe because people were protected against the risks associated with the use and management of medicines. People received their medicines at the times they needed them and in a safe way. Medicines were recorded appropriately and kept safely.

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This helped to safeguard people as required.

Where additional equipment, including fire evacuation equipment, was required this had been requested by the manager.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them or their relatives. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

A visitors' lounge was available for people to see their visitors in private. Visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person commented, 'All staff are fine and the new manager is lovely.'

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service had been invited to complete a satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised the manager told us they would be addressed.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities. Doll therapy was being trialled with positive results for some people who used the service who appeared to enjoy pushing a pram and caring for a doll.

Complaint records showed the actions taken following a complaint being raised with the manager. We looked at three complaints received during 2014. Each complaint had been resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Where appropriate the issues raised were later reviewed at the person's care review to check any improvements had been sustained. Positive comments had been recorded at subsequent review meetings. People can therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

At the time of our visit the manager was not registered with the Care Quality Commission. They explained they had submitted an application to become registered manager during the week prior to our visit.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed identified shortfalls were addressed or raised with the provider promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We spoke with three staff, the manager and the deputy as well as four people who lived in the home. We spoke with one new person's relative who visited at the time of our inspection.

We found care records were not clearly completed and information was not accurately recorded. This meant people were not sufficiently protected against the risks of receiving care that is inappropriate or unsafe.

Staff we spoke with showed they understood people's individual needs and we saw staff were patient and kind when managing people's care.

People we spoke with said they were happy and they had enough to do. However, we saw some people's personal care needs had not been sufficiently attended to.

The relative we spoke with told us they were new to the home, but were happy with their first impressions and they had found staff to be very friendly.

We spoke with staff who knew people's individual personalities and we saw that people's preferences were reflected in their care records. However, in one care record we saw conflicting information about managing care for people at risk of malnutrition.

We found premises to be suitable, safe and accessible, on the whole, with welcoming communal areas. People accessed all available areas including the garden. Some parts of the premises showed signs of wear and tear, particularly some bathrooms, although we saw that this was being improved. We saw that people had their own possessions in their rooms, creating a homely environment.

We found that staff were suitably recruited. When we visited there was an acting manager in post. We were told that the organisation was appointing a new manager. We saw that there were suitable systems in place to check and monitor the quality of the service provision.