Hawksbury House

At the last inspection we found the provider was not meeting legal requirements in relation to the governance of the service and we also made a recommendation around how ensuring staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and its code of practice. At this inspection improvements had been made, the service was no longer in breach of regulations, and the recommendation was met. The provider and registered manager ensured the quality assurance system they had in place was effective. They encouraged people to share their views and always looked to see what improvements could be made. The management team were constantly looking to see where there were gaps in practice continually reviewed existing practise to check they remained effective and over the last year had made a wide range of improvements.

The provider and staff team were passionate about delivering good care and support. A new registered manager and deputy manager came into post this year and they have worked diligently to improve practices at the service, and the provider has completed a full refurbishment of the building. They worked with staff to encourage a shared vision, strategy and culture. The provider clearly valued the staff and promoted operating the service in extremely person-centred ways. The management team were very visible throughout the service and assisted staff to keep abreast of developments in the service.

Care was person-centred and tailored to individual needs. Comprehensive assessments were completed before admission and reviewed regularly. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s preferences and worked closely with relatives and healthcare professionals to ensure timely support. Health needs were monitored effectively, and GP visits and medication reviews were arranged promptly. Staff sought consent before providing care. The management team had provided more training around the application of the MCA and staff now completed capacity assessment and ‘best interests’ decisions in line with expected practice.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s needs and how to best meet them. Staffing levels were generally appropriate although some relatives noted occasional delays during busy periods. The provider continually monitored people’s needs and ensured staff were effectively deployed to promptly meet people’s personal care needs. Activities were varied and meaningful, including baking, music sessions and spiritual opportunities such as weekly church services. People had access to pleasant communal spaces and well-maintained gardens, which contributed to a calm and homely atmosphere.

People’s nutrition and hydration preferences were identified and supported. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s preferences and dislikes regarding food. There was a strong emphasis on involving people with menu reviews and choices. People were very positive about the food on offer.

The home was clean, and infection risks were assessed and managed. The management team demonstrated they had developed a strong learning culture, which used themed supervision to ensure staff constantly developed their skills. This had led to prompt safeguarding responses being made. From a review of concerns the management team found the laundry service was not always effective. In response the provider had employed more laundry staff and was in the process of reorganising the laundry rooms to provide a better flow from dirty to clean areas. Medicines were administered safely using an electronic management system, which the provider and staff found enhanced safety and efficiency.