Castle Hall Residential Care Home, Ravensthorpe, Dewsbury.Castle Hall Residential Care Home in Ravensthorpe, Dewsbury is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and learning disabilities. The last inspection date here was 19th October 2019 Contact Details:
Ratings:For a guide to the ratings, click here. Further Details:Important Dates:
Local Authority:
Link to this page: Inspection Reports:Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.
28th June 2018 - During a routine inspection
![]() This inspection took place on 28 June and 3 July 2018 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 13 February 2017 was not meeting the regulations related to consent to care and treatment. The registered provider had not always acted in accordance with the MCA (2005) and associated guidance. After the last inspection in February 2017, the registered provider sent us an action plan telling us what they were going to do to make sure they were meeting the regulations. At this inspection we checked to see if improvements had been made and found the registered provider had acted to ensure the requirement improvements had been made and sustained. Castle Hall Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Castle Hall Residential Care Home accommodates 16 people in one adapted building and there were 16 people living at the home. Within the constraints of the existing building, the provider had developed and designed the service in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. There was a registered manager in post who had been registered since June 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Medicines management was safe and we observed medicines were administered appropriately during our inspection. There were some minor issues with how medicines were stored which we raised with the registered provider who agreed to address this immediately. We found all the areas of the home we inspected were clean which ensured the risk of infection was minimised. The registered provider continued to upgrade the environment internally, with new carpets, furniture and décor. We found decision specific capacity assessments had been carried out for people who lacked mental capacity to consent to aspects of their care delivery. These were compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood the principles of the MCA and how to ensure people’s human rights were respected when making decisions on their behalf. People had been referred to other health professionals when the need arose and we saw this had positively affected people’s wellbeing. We observed staff were very kind and caring when they were supporting people with care. People at the home who could verbalise their views, told us how kind and ‘brilliant’ staff were and how they treated people with dignity and respect. Positive relationships between staff and people were evident. People's independence was promoted well by staff who understood how to maximise their independence. There was clear evidence of person-centred care and records contained information detailing people’s life histories, preferences and choices. Care plans were complicated due to the amount of information they contained. Plans were in place to make these more user friendly to provide the guidance staff required to support person centred care. People were involved in activities based upon their established routines and preferences. Management was visible in the service and communication was open, honest and transparent. Staff had clear direction and were sure about their roles and responsibilities. Systems and processes for ensuring the quality of the service had been updated to ensure improvements were sustained. New systems ensured the servic
13th February 2017 - During a routine inspection
![]() This inspection took place on 13 February 2017 and was unannounced. This meant they did not know we were coming. The service was last inspected on 15 June 2015. At that time the service was not meeting the regulations related to person centred care, safe care and treatment, and suitable premises. After the last inspection the registered provider sent us an action plan telling us what they were going to do to make sure they were meeting the regulations. On this inspection we checked to see if improvements had been made. Castle Hall Residential Care Home provides personal care and support for up to 16 adults who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people who used the service, thirteen on a long term basis and two on a short term basis. Castle Hall is set over two floors with bedrooms on both floors. The service has three lounges which are open to the people who live at the service. There is a large garden with a patio area which leads from the lounge, and large lawned areas. There is a dining room with an open plan kitchen where people who use the service come together to have their meals, as well as an activity room. The service did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager had applied to register with CQC, however they were on leave during this inspection and did not return to their position.. People we spoke with told us they felt safe and relatives we spoke with told us they were confident their relative was safe at Castle Hall Residential Care Home. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard adults from abuse and who to contact if they suspected any abuse. At our last inspection we found creams were not always stored at the correct temperature. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and administration of medicines was well managed, although improved storage of some medicines was still required. Risk assessments were individual to people’s needs and minimised risk whilst promoting people’s independence. The registered provider had safe recruitment and selection procedures in place. At our last inspection we found people were not always protected against the risk of unsafe or unsuitable premises because window restrictors were not in place on all upper floor windows. At this inspection we found these had been installed. People’s consent to care and treatment was not always sought in line with legislation and guidance, however people were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s assessed needs and provide a good level of interaction. Staff had received an induction, supervision, appraisal and specialist training to enable them to provide support to the people who used the service. Meals were planned to meet people’s dietary needs and people were supported to eat a balanced diet. A range of healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care. Staff were caring and supported people in a way that maintained their dignity, privacy and human rights. People were supported to be as independent as possible throughout their daily lives. We found evidence of people’s access to activities in line with their care plans. People were able to make choices about their care. People’s care plans detailed the care and support they required and included information about peoples likes and dislikes. Individual needs were met through the development of detailed personalised care plans. Systems were in place to ensure complaints were encourage
16th June 2014 - During a routine inspection
![]() On the day we visited we gathered evidence and inspected against six outcomes to help answer our five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? We met and spoke to most of the people who lived at the home and observed how people who used the service were being cared for. We spoke to six staff including the home manager, a visiting maintenance person and a student on placement. We also attended a staff handover meeting, examined four care plans, five staff files and inspected the home's records. Below is the summary of what we found but if you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report. Is the service safe? The staff felt the people who lived at Castle Hall Care Home were safe because everyone was well cared for and no one waited for attention. They told us they had training in safeguarding and understood what was meant by mental capacity. When asked, staff could identify some of the types of abuse and told us they would report abuse if it occurred. Staff also told us that there was enough staff to enable them to undertake their work. We inspected the staffing rota set by the manager and observed that there was sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to ensure that people’s needs were being met. We had moderate concerns related to the treatment of one person we observed who lived at the home. This person was being confined to a lounge away from other people. Staff were supervising their meals and personal care and used an alarm to alert them if they left the room. We were told that this restriction was in place because they became distressed and disruptive when in the company of other people who lived at the home. We discussed our concerns related to this person with the manager. They confirmed that they had attended Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) training and told us that they had wondered whether they were depriving this person of their liberty; however they had not sought any professional advice. The manager was advised to make an application for a DoLS assessment for this person. In the interim the manager was also advised to consider implementing an alternative plan of staff support for the person in order that the current level of isolation could be substantially reduced. Is the service caring? The people who lived at the home were encouraged to be self-caring and empowered by staff to be involved and as independent as possible in making decisions about their care and treatment. They were consulted about the activities they wanted provided in the home and the outings and holidays they undertook. Some people had formed friendship groups within the home and told us they regularly went on holiday with their friend. We observed the interactions between staff and service users to be unhurried, friendly, cheerful and sensitive. People were treated with respect and staff asked permission before they entered rooms or attended to people’s personal needs. Is the service effective? Castle Hall is a two storey building with a large garden that provided a number of living and lounge areas for the people who lived at the home but most people were socialising around the main downstairs lounge and large communal kitchen dining area. There is a laundry and individual rooms for the service users with washing facilities. There was also a large shower wet room and an assisted bathroom on each floor. We had some moderate concerns related to the maintenance and safety of the building. During our tour of the building we saw that a significant number of tiles were missing from the shower wall in the ground wet room and that the hand rail supports around the toilet was very loose. We were told by the manager that the maintenance person was due to undertake the repairs; however the room remained in use when we visited. We advised the manager not to use the wet room in its current condition as it constituted a Health and Safety hazard to both the people who use the service and staff. We also noted that the keys to the locked store rooms were hung either on the door frame or kept on top of a nearby fire alarm, both of which were ineffective places to store the keys as they did not prevent unauthorised people from gaining access. There was a key worker system in place and people who used the service had their health and care needs assessed, planned and updated by the designated member of staff. The people who lived at the home had taken turns to choose the lunchtime meal and we observed most of the people and staff socialising and enjoying their communal meal during the day. Drinks were freely available for people from the kitchen counter and offered to those people who were more dependent. Is the service responsive? The people living at the home had complex medical, emotional and communication needs. Staff provided support with their various medical treatments as well as transporting them to their appointments, day centres and accompanying them on holidays. They also supported them to plan events, buy clothes, and greetings cards for special occasions. They helped them to maintain contact and involvement with their relatives by planning home visits and regular telephone calls. Is the service well-led? The staff told us there was no difficulty with the manager and that they were very approachable. A satisfaction questionnaire was produced in an easy read format and staff had supported people to complete them. However, they had not been completed by external professionals, relatives or friends of the people who lived at the home. The quality of the service was monitored by the provider and the manager told us they completed regular audits of the home. We had moderate concerns with the provider’s quality monitoring process in that when issues were identified or brought to their attention appropriate action had not been taken to protect staff and people who lived at Castle Hall from health and safety hazards. The provider had a fire prevention policy that banned portable heaters but they had not ensured the banned portable heaters were removed from the premises. In addition the supervision had failed to ensure manager was acting in the best interests of the person whose movements were being significantly controlled by their staff.
22nd August 2013 - During a routine inspection
![]() We spoke with four people who used the service, five staff and the registered manager. We saw that staff treated people with respect, offered them choices and maintained their privacy and dignity. One person said, “I like it here, staff are lovely”. We found people were well cared for and the care documentation was detailed and person-centred. Staff showed a good understanding of people’s needs. We saw they were kind and considerate in their interactions with people. We found people had access to a choice of food and drinks throughout the day and night. People told us they enjoyed their meals and we saw they were offered a choice and given assistance where required. We found safe systems in place to manage medicines. We found there were systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received.
20th February 2013 - During a routine inspection
![]() Before people received any care or treatment they were routinely asked for their consent. Members of staff told us that they always explained all procedures and treatments. The care plans we looked at contained evidence of people’s views and experiences that were taken into account in the way the service was provided. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The care plans contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. One person told us, “It’s nice, staff are amazing.” Another person said, “I’m happy here. Staff help me.” We found people received care and treatment in a clean environment with various infection control measures in place to minimise the risk of infection. One relative we spoke with said, “It’s not bad and it’s warm and comfortable.” People were treated by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had a programme of on going training, supervision and appraisal. There was an effective complaints system in place. Complaints people made were responded to appropriately.
7th February 2012 - During a routine inspection
![]() We spoke with seven people who live at Castle Hall. Everyone spoken with was very positive about living in the home about the staff and the support they receive. Some of their comments included "It's my home. I wouldn't want to go anywhere else. We have lovely food and the staff are great" “We do lots of things and have parties “ “I like my room and my new TV”
People were happy to show their rooms and said how they chose the colours and the decoration. We spent sometime sitting with a group of people in the dining room. We saw positive interactions between people who use the services and the staff and it was clear that staff know and understand the needs of the people in Castle Hall. People were observed being encouraged and supported to make their own decisions about how they wish to be supported and food choices. One person said “You can eat when you want and get up late” No one expressed any worries or concerns but said if they were worried, they would speak to staff.
1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection
![]() This inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 18 June 2015.
Castle Hall Residential Care Home provides personal care and support for up to 16 adults who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people who used the service. Castle Hall is set over two floors with bedrooms on both floors. The service has three lounges which are open to the people who live at the service. There is a large garden with a patio area which leads from the lounge, and large lawned areas which are open to the people using the service. There is a dining room with an open plan kitchen where people who use the service come together to have their meals.
A registered manager was in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service was last inspected on 16 June 2014, the service was not compliant at this inspection. The concerns at the previous inspection were that the provider had not made suitable provision to ensure that the person's rights were protected in line with the Legislation of the Mental Capacity
Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Code of Practice and that People who use the service, staff and visitors were not protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.
Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns so that people were kept safe from harm. People were helped to avoid having accidents and their medicines were safely managed. There were enough staff available and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed.
Management and staff had a positive attitude towards managing risk and keeping people safe. Potential risks of harm to the individual in their daily lives were identified and assessed.
The provider had a thorough recruitment process in place to check that staff were suitable to work with people who used the service. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff, however there was no staffing in place to manage activities for the people who were using the service, which meant that there were no activities organised during the time of our inspection.
Staff had developed good relationships with people living at the service, and respected their diverse needs. They were caring and respectful and had the required knowledge and skills they needed to meet people’s individual needs appropriately and safely. Staff knew each person’s individual care and support needs well. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and upheld; they were supported to express their views and choices. Staff clearly understood each person’s way of communicating their needs and wishes.
Management and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions in some areas of their care, treatment and support.
People had a choice of balanced, healthy and nutritious meals and were assisted to eat independently, whilst enjoying the company of other people who lived at the service and the staff who ate with them.
People received personalised care specific to their individual needs: their independence was encouraged and they had access to materials which allowed them to enjoy their hobbies and interests.
The provider had arrangements in place to routinely listen to the thoughts and opinions of people living at the service. This was by means of a regular questionnaire, produced in a format which was accessible to the needs of the people who lived in the service.
Quality assurance systems were robust and helped to ensure the service delivered was of a high quality, safe and continued to improve.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
|
Latest Additions:
|