Archived: Hadley House Nursing Home

Updated 11 March 2015

We inspected Hadley House Nursing Home on 11 August 2014. This was an unannounced inspection which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. The service met the regulations we inspected against at their last inspection which took place on 12 September 2013.

The inspection team consisted of a lead inspector, a specialist nursing advisor and an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert-by-experience for this inspection had experience of mental health services.

We spoke with five people living at the service and two visiting relatives. We also spoke with one nurse, two care staff and the registered manager. A healthcare professional who was visiting the home gave us their views. We observed care and support in communal areas. We also looked at the kitchen and some people’s bedrooms, as well as a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed.

Before the inspection we checked the information we held about the service, including notifications of significant events that the provider had sent to CQC. No concerns had been raised. Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete 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. They did not return a PIR and we took this into account when we made the judgements in this report.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is this service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 11 March 2015

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 the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

We inspected Hadley House Nursing Home on 11 August 2014.

Hadley House Nursing Home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 14 people who may have mental health needs. There were 14 people living at the home when we visited, most of whom were over 65 years of age. One of the proprietors of the service was also the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People we spoke with and visiting relatives told us that the staff looked after them well and they liked living at Hadley House Nursing Home. One person said, “I love it here and I’m really glad that I live here. They really look after me here.” Another person said, “I love living here, it is great. They are all so good to us here. Bless this house.”

During our inspection of the premises we noted some possible risks to people’s safety. We noted that some medicines that were no longer required had not been returned to the pharmacist for disposal in order to minimise the risk of staff administering medicines that were not currently required. We observed that cleaning substances that may be hazardous to health were not stored securely. A “sharps” box, designed for safe disposal of needles used for injections and blood tests was overfull and the lid could not close, which was a risk to people’s health and safety. Staff made sure that these items were stored safely during our visit to the home. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The registered manager carried out regular checks of health and safety in the home. However these checks had not found the areas of risks to people’s safety that we observed concerning storage of cleaning substances that may be hazardous to health, and arrangements for safe disposal of medicines and of needles used for injections and blood tests. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People received care from staff who had the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. Two visiting relatives told us that they were confident that staff had training to understand the needs of each person and how to support them. People who used the service told us that there were always staff available to help them when needed. Two visiting relatives said that staff were always available to talk to and there were always enough staff in the home.

People who used the service told us that the staff understood and looked after their health care needs very well. A relative said, “[The person] is much better since they have been here than when they were in the hospital. They are looked after very well.” A health care professional told us that staff contacted them appropriately and followed the advice they gave. They said that the staff were very attentive and provided good healthcare.

People told us they were treated with kindness and compassion and their dignity was respected. One person said, “It’s nice here. They are nice people. They are good people. They look after me well here.” Staff told us that care plans gave them information on each person, and they discussed people’s needs and how to meet them at staff handovers. We observed staff supporting people with individual activities such as games and puzzles.

Care plans provided information for staff on how they should meet each person’s assessed needs. We saw that care plans were reviewed as people’s needs changed so that staff knew what support people required.

People told us that they would be able to talk to any member of staff if they had a complaint or concern, but no-one we spoke to had made any complaints.

We observed that staff and managers worked together as a team. The registered manager and staff showed that they were very dedicated to providing a caring atmosphere for the people who used the service. A relative said, “It’s like one big family here.”