Hazelmead Residential Care Home

Safeguarding, risk management, staffing and medicines arrangements were generally safe. Medicines records were accurate and staff had regular competency checks.

“Medicines were managed and stored safely. Medicines records were accurate.” from the report

Staff provided person-centred support and understood people's individual needs. People and relatives were involved in care planning.

“Staff knew people well and provided person-centred care.” from the report

People were helped to access healthcare and specialist services. Staff followed advice from healthcare professionals.

“People had been referred to services such as the speech and language therapist in a timely manner.” from the report

People said they enjoyed living at the home and felt listened to. Staff supported people to take part in activities and build confidence.

“There was a positive, person-centred culture in the service.” from the report

Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always in place. Some restrictions were used without the required legal authority being recorded.

“Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always in place.” from the report

The provider's monitoring systems did not identify the consent problems found during the inspection. Inspectors said this created a risk that the service could deteriorate further.

“The provider's quality monitoring processes in place were not robust.” from the report

There was no formal process for recording and sharing lessons learnt after incidents or accidents. Inspectors recommended that this process be reviewed.

“There was no formal process for documenting lessons learnt or sharing lessons learnt.” from the report

The registered manager spent most of their time caring rather than managing the service. This left limited time for quality assurance.

“This meant there was limited time for the registered manager to dedicate to the quality assurance of the service.” from the report