We carried out a review of the data available to us about Harpwood Care Home 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 Harpwood Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Harpwood Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 50 people. The service provides support to older people with frailty and those living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 39 people using the service. The accommodation is arranged across two floors with lift access to the upper floor.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe and were happy living in Harpwood Care Home and described the staff as kind and gentle. One person said, “I do like it here.” Another person said, “They are always kind to me.” Relatives agreed that their loved ones were safe and happy. One relative said, “The home is a bit outdated, but for me it’s all about the carers, they are fantastic.”
People received safe care and treatment from staff who knew them well. Medicines and infection control were both managed safely, and lessons were learned when things went wrong.
The provider had robust quality assurance processes to monitor the service, and regular audits were undertaken, for example in infection control and medicines. Staff had received appropriate training and supervision. People, relatives and staff had been asked for feedback about the service.
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.
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 good (published 9 August 2019).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by our data insight that assesses potential risks at services, concerns in relation to aspects of care provision and previous ratings. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. This enabled us to look at the concerns raised and review the previous ratings.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Harpwood Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Harpwood Care Home is a residential care home without nursing for 50 older people. It can also accommodate people who have physical adaptive needs or who live with dementia.
At the time of this inspection there were 49 people were living in the service. Most of them lived with dementia some of whom had special communication needs.
People's experience of using this service and what we found:
People and their relatives were positive about the service. A person said, “The staff very good, all of them are friendly and if I have a problem they are willing to listen and help me.” Another person smiled and pointed in the direction of their bedroom when we used signed-assisted language to ask them about their home. A relative said, "I’m happy with my relative being here because the staff are so kind.”
People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. They received safe care and treatment in line with national guidance from care staff who had the knowledge and skills they needed. There were enough care staff on duty and safe recruitment practices were in place. People were supported to take medicines safely. Lessons had been learned when things had gone wrong. Good standards of hygiene were maintained to prevent and control the risk of infection.
People had been helped to quickly receive medical attention when necessary. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The accommodation was well maintained and provided people with a comfortable setting in which to make their home.
Care staff were courteous, people’s privacy was respected and confidential information was handled in the right way.
People were given information in an accessible way and they were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. Complaints were quickly investigated and resolved.
People were treated with compassion at the end of their lives so they had a pain-free death.
Quality checks were completed to ensure the service was running in the right way. People had been consulted about the development of the service. Good team work was promoted, regulatory requirements had been met and joint working was promoted.
For more details, please read the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection (and update):
The last comprehensive inspection was completed on 1 July 2016 and 6 July 2016. The inspection report was published on 30 July 2018. The rating for the service was Good.
We completed a focused inspection on 4 June 2018. This was because we had received concerning information about parts of the care provided in the service. The inspection report was published on 28 July 2018. The rating for the service was Requires Improvement.
The registered persons completed an action plan after the inspection in June 2018 to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the registered persons were no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit in line with our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
We undertook an unannounced focused inspection of Harpwood Care Home on 4 June 2018. The team inspected the service against three of the five questions we ask about services: is the service well led, is the service effective and is the service safe. This was due to the concerns that had been raised, and the potential risk to others living at Harpwood Care Home. At this inspection the service was rated as requires improvement in safe, effective and well-led, therefore the overall rating for the service is now requires improvement.
Harpwood Care Home 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.
Harpwood Care Home is a privately owned care home providing accommodation for up to 50 older people some of whom live with dementia. The service had three double bedrooms; the remainder of the rooms were single, some with ensuite facilities. There was a large garden for people to use with seating and pathways. There were 43 people living in the service when we inspected.
The service had a manager in post who had started after the full comprehensive inspection in July 2016. The manager had applied to become registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. The manager had attended their registration interview in the week prior to our inspection. 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.
Some people’s care plans were detailed and gave staff guidance regarding how to meet people’s needs. However, some care plans were not always complete and, some contained conflicting information. One persons’ care plan recorded that they did want to receive medical attention in the event of an emergency; however, another page within their plan stated they did not want medical attention. Another persons’ care plan stated there was concern regarding the person’s weight loss, and that meals should be offered frequently. However, in practice staff were supporting this person to manage their weight and offering a low fat diet.
Risks posed to people had not been consistently assessed, recorded and monitored. Some people were at risk of skin damage and used specialist equipment to reduce this risk. However, the equipment had been incorrectly set, leaving these people at risk of skin damage. Another persons’ care plan stated they were at risk of falls; guidance was available for staff to follow to reduce this risk. However, the guidance was not consistently followed by the staff team, leaving the person at risk of falling. Other risks to people had been properly assessed and action was taken to mitigate the risk.
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. People were encouraged to make their own choices and staff gained people’s consent prior to any care or support tasks. However, people’s capacity to consent to specific decisions had not always been sought in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
People felt safe with the staff at Harpwood Care Home. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from potential abuse. There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s assessed needs. Recruitment procedures had not consistently been followed; gaps in employment had not been explored or recorded. We have made a recommendation about this.
People received their medicines from trained staff as prescribed by their doctor. People were supported to maintain their health and attend appointments with health care professionals as required. The manager had developed professional relationships with external agencies to promote people’s health. People’s nutrition and hydration had been assessed, however, records showed inconsistent guidance for staff. People were offered a range of meals which they enjoyed and were offered regular drinks.
The quality and monitoring systems in place were not always effective. There were regular audits carried out by the manager and senior manager, however, these had not always identified the concerns that were found during this inspection.
The building and equipment was suitably maintained to make sure it was in good working order. Regular checks were made to the fire alarm system and emergency fire-fighting equipment. People’s ability to safely evacuate the building in the event of an emergency had been recorded. The service was clean throughout and people were protected from the potential risk of infection.
Staff were supported in their role by the management team. A variety of training courses were available to enable staff to meet people’s needs, including their specialist needs. New staff completed an induction and worked alongside experienced members of staff before working as part of the care team. There was a visible management team who promoted an open culture within the service.
We found four 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 this report.
Full information about CQC's regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to the back of the full version of the reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
There was not a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. The previous registered manager had left the service in May 2016. The registered provider was recruiting a new manager for the service. The deputy manager for the service was overseeing the running of the home, with support from an internal quality manager and the registered provider, until a new manager was appointed.
Accurate and complete records were not always maintained to allow the registered provider to monitor the delivery of care. We have made a recommendation about this.
Staff had not been trained in using fire evacuation equipment that people’s fire evacuation assessments said they needed to use. We have made a recommendation about this.
Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual. Each risk assessment included clear measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow or make sure people were protected from harm. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of recurrence could be reduced.
There was a sufficient number of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Thorough recruitment procedures were in place which included the checking of references. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and requests. People’s needs were assessed and personalised plans written to meet them. Staff knew each person well and understood how to meet their needs.
Staff had completed training to enable them to carry out their roles. There was an ongoing programme of training and development for staff. Staff were supported and supervised by the deputy manager. Staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with kindness and respect. People’s right to privacy was maintained. They promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.
Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate. People were promptly referred to health care professionals when needed.
The premises were well maintained, safe and comfortable for people to use. The home was kept clean and the risk of the spread of infection in the home had been assessed and managed.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Appropriate applications to restrict people’s freedom had been submitted and the least restrictive options had been considered. Staff sought and obtained people’s consent before they helped them. People’s mental capacity was assessed when necessary about particular decisions. When necessary, meetings were held to make decisions in people’s best interest, following the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People had enough to eat and drink and were supported to make choices about their meals. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and restrictions.
People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. Clear information about the service and how to complain was provided to people and visitors. The registered provider sought feedback from people and used the information to improve the service provided.
There was a system for monitoring the quality and safety of the service to identify any improvements that needed to be made. The registered provider had a clear and effective improvement plan for the service and had made a number of positive changes since taking on ownership of the service.