Hallmark Henley Manor Luxury Care Home

People had excellent opportunities and access to a variety of activities to prevent social isolation. Social activities met people's individual needs and followed best practice guidance so people could live as full a life as possible. Activities were overseen by a committed, passionate and experienced staff team.

The service has gone the extra mile to find out what people had done in the past, evaluated whether it could accommodate activities, and made that happen. The service had gone the extra mile to encourage and support people to develop and maintain relationships with people that matter to them. The service took a key role in the local community and was actively involved in building further links with the local community. Contact with other community resources and support networks was encouraged and sustained. Local schools had links with the home, with pupils and people visiting each other's establishments. People told us they enjoyed and benefitted from these links.

The service worked closely with healthcare professionals and provided excellent end of life care. People experienced a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death. We saw feedback from relatives following end of life care was commendable. Staff had the specific skills to understand and meet the needs of people and their families in relation to emotional support and the practical assistance they needed at the end of the person's life. Records showed staff had attended end of life care training. Staff told us they were supported by the management team with empathy and understanding.

Staff knew how to identify and report any concerns. The provider had safe recruitment and selection processes in place which incorporated their values.

Risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People and relatives told us staff were caring. Staff did all they could to promote people's independence and we saw examples of this. People received personalised care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences, and staff supported people and their relatives to be involved with decisions relating to their

care. People's privacy and dignity was upheld through the approaches taken by staff as well as in relation to the care environment, as people each had access to their own bedrooms with ensuite bathroom facilities.

People had a pleasant well-presented dining experience which offered a variety of appetising food choices available at times that suite people's preferences. Staff supported people to maintain food and fluid intakes, including, through the use of snacks, and making people hot drinks during the night to help them relax and maintain their comfort. There were hydration points and bottles of drinks freely available and placed at many accessible areas.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had a particularly good understanding of when the principles of the Mental Capacity Act should be applied. People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and complimented the food at the home.

The home was well-led by a registered manager who was committed to improving people's quality of life. The service had a clear management and staffing structure in place and staff worked well as a team. The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place that included the use of technology to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Staff worked well with external social and health care professionals.