Archived: Homefield Court

Updated 21 December 2019

Start this section with the following heading:

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Homefield Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

Before the inspection we looked at information we held about the service. This information included any statutory notifications that the provider had sent to the CQC. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return [PIR]. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this and all other information we had about the service to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, five care workers and the activities co-ordinator. We spoke with nine people living at the home, a family member and a visiting friend of a person. We also spoke with three visiting healthcare professionals.

We reviewed a variety of records which related to people's individual care and the running of the service. This included the care records of six people and eight medicines records. We looked at six staff employment and training records. Records relating to the management of the home, including policies and procedures and quality assurance monitoring were also reviewed.

Updated 21 December 2019

About the service

Homefield Court is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The home can accommodate up to 24 people in one adapted building. When we inspected 23 people were living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Prior to our inspection the home had been inspected by the London Fire Brigade (LBS). The provider had subsequently been served with a LBS enforcement notice requiring them to complete a range of safety improvements. Some improvements had already taken place. The registered manager assured us other improvements would be completed within the timescales provided in the enforcement notice.

Regular hot water temperature monitoring had taken place. However, the hot water temperatures for taps in five people's rooms were significantly higher than they should have been. The registered manager took action to address this during our inspection.

Quality assurance monitoring had taken place. However, this had not identified and addressed risks associated with fire safety and hot water temperatures.

Maintenance and checks of other safety systems at the home had taken place.

People told us they felt safe. The provider had systems to ensure people were safe and protected from abuse and harm. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and understood the importance of immediate reporting of concerns. Risks to people had been identified and staff knew how to reduce these. People’s prescribed medicines were stored and given safely.

Recruitment of staff was safe and robust. Pre-employment checks had been carried before staff could commence work. People told us there were sufficient numbers of staff to support them.

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 at the home supported this practice. People were regularly asked for their views about the support they received.

There were arrangements to ensure that people’s nutritional needs were met. People’s dietary requirements, likes and dislikes were assessed and known to staff. People were able to choose what they ate and drank.

Staff members received regular training and supervision to ensure that they were able to carry out their roles effectively.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected. Staff understood the need to protect and respect people's human rights. People’s personal, spiritual and cultural wishes and needs were respected and supported.

People received personalised care. Their care plans had been regularly reviewed and updated to reflect people's changing needs and wishes. Staff supported people to take part in activities that were relevant and appropriate to them.

People and family members told us that they had no complaints, but they knew who to speak to if they did.

People, family members and staff told us the home was well managed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 20 April 2017).

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive. We will inspect in line with our inspection programme or sooner if required.