Hyne Town House

People told us they felt safe living at Hyne Town House. They said staff knew them well, how to care for them and meet their needs. We observed staff supporting people safely, in a kind and caring manner.

People who were able to share their views with us, did not raise any concerns about their living environment. However, we found certain aspects of the environment were not fully safe. For example, fire arrangements in two smaller properties where people were living, windows throughout the buildings not appropriately restricted and risk assessments were not in place for the use of bedrails. This was a continued breach of regulation 12.

Whilst people told us they received their medicines when they needed them, processes for management of medicines stock were not robust. This meant the provider could not be assured people were receiving their medicines as prescribed for them. This was a breach of regulation 12.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing was managed and care plans and risk assessments were in place and contained guidance about how to manage or mitigate risk. However, some care plans could be improved further to ensure staff had enough information to provide safe care.

People told us and we observed, there were enough staff to support people and meet their needs.

People who were able to share their views with us told us staff always gave them choices and asked them what they wanted to do. Relatives told us staff always asked for people’s consent and they were involved with mental capacity assessments when they were needed. However, we found people were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions showed a lack of knowledge and understanding of the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was a continued breach of regulation 11.

People and their relatives told us the service was quick to respond to any health needs people had and sought timely medical advice. Staff told us they had developed good relationships with health professionals involved with the service and where advice was given, this was written into people’s care plans.

Since the last inspection in March 2024 improvements had been made to people’s care plans. Care plans and risk assessments contained more detailed person-centred information about people, were updated regularly and information throughout people’s care records was accurate and consistent.

Improvements had been made to enhance people’s experience of living at the service. People had access to regular activities and were supported to follow their interests in a personalised way. These improvements meant the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 9.

People, who were able, told us they enjoyed the activities offered to them. We observed staff supporting people to make decisions about their day-to-day lives including where they wanted to spend their time, and what activities they wanted to take part in.

People commented staff were easy to talk to and kept them informed. People’s relatives received regular updates about their relative and what was happening at the service. Information was provided in accessible ways to ensure everyone was kept informed.

People and relatives had opportunities to discuss their care and make suggestions to improve the service and the care they received, such as, meetings and surveys.

People were supported to make plans for their future where appropriate.

Since the last inspection the service had a new registered manager who had registered with the commission in February 2024. Staff told us the service was well managed and the registered manager was approachable and supportive.

However, whilst staff told us and we saw improvements had been made in some areas, the service continues to be requires improvement and we identified 3 breaches of regulation. A range of audits were undertaken as part of a quality assurance process including systems like daily walkarounds; however, these had not identified or addressed the issues of concern we found on our visit relating to the safety of the environment, medicines management, and the MCA. The service had a whistleblowing policy in place accessible to staff to support them to report concerns. Staff told us they were supported by the management team and felt confident to raise any concerns.

People and relatives told us healthcare professionals were contacted by the service, were involved in their care and visited regularly.