The Care Quality Commission

Archived: Haunton Hall

Haunton, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 9HW (01827) 373631

Provided and run by:
Four Seasons (No 11) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

17 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected Haunton Hall in June 2013. The home was in receivership and managed by Four Seasons Care. The manager told us she was optimistic that the sale of the home to a new provider would take place in the near future. It was anticipated that this would bring necessary improvements to the building and to the morale of the staff who provided care for the people who lived there.

We found that significant improvements had taken place since our previous inspection. There had been an overall increase in staff numbers. Staff had engaged with the method of care planning brought in by Four Seasons. The care we observed was positive. Some people had moved rooms so they could be better supported. Staff training had emphasised the respect due to people and we saw that people were treated with respect and consideration. Quality monitoring audits were in place.

Sixty-three people were living at Haunton Hall on the day of our inspection. We spoke with six people; each person was positive about the care they received. One person told us: 'I'm very satisfied. I think the care is good. We get plenty of food and we can get our hair done every week.' Another person told us: 'It's very good here. It's got to be good, or I wouldn't have been here this long.' A third person said: 'I came for respite care and asked to come back. I find the staff lovely.'

2, 11 October 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Most people who lived at Haunton Hall were unable to talk about their care. People we did speak with were mostly positive about the food. One person told us about the independence they had at the home, "I can choose when I get up and I can go to bed when I want to. I don't have to have someone tell me'. People's relatives were mostly satisfied, 'We would not want them to be anywhere else. Most people are happy here, even if they are a bit thin on staff'.

We had concerns that the layout of the care home within the building meant that the staff worked well apart from one another. There were six units which catered for people with different needs. The units functioned independently of one another. There were generally two staff working on each unit. When one staff member collected people's meals or had a break this left only one staff member to assist people.

Staff said they felt the home was under-staffed; they found it difficult to support one another across the units. People's relatives had noticed there were few staff on duty at any one time. We observed that people sometimes had to wait for assistance.

We saw some staff being disrespectful to people. We observed that care planning was inconsistent. Staff did not check care plans to find out about people's needs. We found that staff training was mostly on-line and disliked by staff. There had been safeguarding concerns at Haunton Hall which we followed up. Quality assurance systems were not always effective.

11 April 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited Haunton Hall on 11 March 2012 following concerns raised to us about the care and welfare of people.On the day of our visit we looked at the care given across all six units.Each unit had a unit manager involved in it's day to day running.Some of the units were managed as one with the same unit manager.The registered manager had overall responsibility and was supported by a deputy.

On the day of our visit the service was not up to the maximum capacity of 105 people, there were a total of 60 people two of whom were in hospital.We spoke with twelve people who lived at Haunton Hall and three relatives.We also spoke with nine members of staff and the registered manager.

A number of people were unable to express their views due to health conditions.We were able to look at other areas for evidence to support their experience such as speaking to family members and staff.We also sampled a set of seven care records and observed care given.

We observed how people living at the home engaged in their environment and how staff interacted with them.We used a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI).This is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.We carried out SOFI on three people in three different units.

We followed the care of six people living at Haunton Hall who were identified as having complex health needs or challenging behaviour.We focused on specific areas of their care to establish the overall outcome they experienced, we call this pathway tracking.

People we spoke with on the day of our visit were overall happy with the care given but were not always involved or informed of their care.One person we spoke with said " I'm usually offered choices and my consent is sought, but I'm not sure about care plans".A relative we spoke with told us 'we haven't been included in the care planning for our relative but we have visited everyday and can see that they are settling in well". Lack of involvement in their care means people may not always be able to make or participate in decisions relating to their care and treatment.

We found staffing levels were unable to meet the individual needs of the people living at Haunton Hall.Staff commented that they did not always have enough staff to ensure that care was individualised.People we spoke with said they often had to wait for attention.We saw in some units people were not receiving the appropriate level of supervision.For example one person had very little supervision in the thirty minutes we observed them using SOFI.This means there may not always be sufficient staff to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of people.

We found appropriate measures were not in place to ensure safety and suitability of premises.We found heating arrangements were problematic and people did not have easy access to suitable bathing facilities.We saw areas which should be kept locked for safety purposes were accessible.This means people were at risk from unsuitable premises which did not promote their wellbeing.