Hunningley Grange Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Since our last inspection, a new manager had been appointed, they had been a post for approximately 6 weeks. The manager had put several new systems and processed in place, however as these take time to be embedded into practice, and several concerns were identified at the time of our inspection. Governance systems were not always effective. The provider did not have effective oversight of the service, to ensure the home was well led in the absence of a registered manager. Most staff told us the culture within the team was improving and the manager had made positive improvements to the service.

This service scored 29 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us that although they had access to care records, improvements were required to ensure they understood how to use online systems and had time to read peoples care plans and risk assessments. Most staff told us they were confident in the new manager and felt included in the changes taking place. Staff told they had been involved in team meetings to discuss the recent changes taking place.. A staff member said, “We are told what jobs we are doing in the morning. The manager listens to staff and looks after them. They have provided us with a staff room, so we now have somewhere to put our things and eat our lunch.” Whilst another staff member said, “Some staff do not pull their weight.”

Whilst improvements had been made, systems required embedding into practice, to ensure the staff team had a shared direction and positive culture. Daily flash meetings had been introduced to improve the day-to-day communication within the staff team. Daily tasks were now allocated for staff through a daily handover.

Most staff were confident in the new manager. However, some staff told us they were not confident in other senior members of staff. One staff told us, “There is senior staff who works in the home, they are nasty to staff.” Another staff member said, “Since the manager started things have got better, they are very good.”

Quality monitoring visits undertaken by senior managers were not effective in identifying concerns we found during our inspection. The service was not well led in the absence of a manager in previous months. A new manager was in post and was knowledgeable and dedicated to making improvements in the service. At the time of our inspection, several systems and processes had been implemented, which required fully embedding into practice. The manager had introduced daily walk rounds, which included day to day compliance checks.

We received mixed feedback from staff about whistleblowing on poor practice. A staff member said, “I don’t feel I could report certain members of staff to the provider (due to personal links).” And another staff member said, “The service improving, with the exception of one staff, they are resistant to change.” Whilst another staff told us, “I would report concerns to the manager. They are doing a good job; it is much better.”

Policies and procedures were in place and available to staff about how to whistle blow on poor practice. However, these required embedding into staff practice as we received mixed feedback from staff about if they felt comfortable to raise concerns.

Some staff told us they had not been trained in the use of hand held devices and the associated apps, so were unable to rely on available information when caring for people, which could result in them being less able to do carry out their roles as effectively than others. Some staff were employed via a sponsorship license from abroad, they told us they had been supported to integrate into their new roles. A staff member said, “I have worked here for a long time now, the new manager has changed lots of things for the better. I have a contract and can pick up extra shifts, I only do this if I want to.”

Policies and procedures were in place to promote equality and diversity. Some improvements were required to ensure all staff were supported with their professional development. Plans were in place to improve this.

The manager was open and honest with us throughout the inspection. They had recognised improvements were required and had began to address these.

Governance systems were ineffective in identifying concerns we found in relation to IPC, records, environmental safety, and person-centred care. New audits were being introduced to monitor the quality and safety of care people receive, these required embedding into practice at the time of our inspection. Whilst the new management team had made positive changes and was taking steps to improve the service, overarching governance systems were ineffective. The provider or senior management team had not identified or actioned the concerns found during our inspection.

Improvements were required to provide people with community engagement and meaningful activities. People told us they were bored. One person told us, “I am one of the few people who get to go out every day, I take myself out.” People and relatives told us the home was now well led. A relative said, “Yes, it is well led.” And a person said, “It is organized. It is a good home”

Staff worked with external agencies to meet people's health needs. Staff told us people lacked meaningful activities and there were little social community links.

We received negative feedback from partners who worked with the service about the safety and quality of the service. They told us there were various actions which required completion, this was also found by us during our inspection.

There was a lack of meaningful activities or stimulation for people. Community inclusion was not taking place for people. Activity schedules were not in place, although plans were in place to improve this in the future.

Staff did not provide meaningful engagement with people or provide people with things to do each day, which was important to them. Most staff told us things were improving in the home. A staff member said, “We have had staff meetings, and the manager told us about the changes which were happening.” Another staff member said, “Things have improved within the last few weeks.” Another staff member said, “I like routine and to know what I am doing, so this new system works for me.”

During our inspection the manager was open and honest with us about the improvements which were required. They had recognised the concerns we identified, had formulated various new systems and action plans. These required a period of time to be completed and embedded into practice. Refurbishment plans were in place and the provider was in the process of replacing furniture and equipment.