Hay House Nursing Home

Staff supported people to make decisions about risk. Risk assessments were completed to promote independence and minimise risks to people. Care plans provided sufficient guidance to staff to keep people safe. Any incidents or accidents were reviewed and investigated by the registered manager to identify any developing trends that might indicate further changes were needed. This helped to maximise people’s safety and enabled staff to deliver safe care and support. Safeguarding systems, processes and practices were effective to help ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and neglect. There was a safeguarding policy, staff had safeguarding training and told us how they would report any concerns. They were confident all concerns would be dealt with appropriately. The service was generally working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where required appropriate legal authorisations were requested to deprive a person of their liberty. Some equipment was in use to manage risk, which could be restrictive. For example, senor mats which alert staff to a person’s movements. There was no record of a metal capacity assessment or best interest decision for the use of this equipment. The registered manager addressed this during the inspection. There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had been recruited safely and received appropriate training for their role.

People’s independence was promoted, and people were encouraged to do what they could for themselves. People were able to carry on with their usual routines and staff respected these. People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them, this included access to their friends and family. The registered manager was taking steps to improve the activities programme.

People had access to health and social care services to promote positive health outcomes. For example, mental health specialists, dietitians, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. People were supported to attend appointments as necessary, such as hospital appointments. GPs visited the service weekly. Feedback from professionals was generally positive. Comments included, “They (staff) do a good job”. One professional described how staff used distraction and other strategies to defuse situations or deal with any challenges rather than using sedative medicines. The professional added, “This is reassuring”.

Where suggestions for improvements were made by professionals, these were shared with the registered manager. For example, 2 professionals felt communication could be improve with the service.

People were treated as individuals and their views sought and listened to. People were asked for their views on how the service was managed and they knew how to complain. People, relatives and staff said they felt listened to and were confident in the management of the service. People were aware of how to raise any concerns but said they had no cause to complain. Where a relative had raised minor issues, these had been addressed.