Owlett Hall, Drighlington, Bradford.Owlett Hall in Drighlington, Bradford is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, diagnostic and screening procedures, physical disabilities and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 4th February 2020 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.
13th November 2018 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
![]() This inspection took place on 13 and 16 November 2018. At our last inspection in June 2018, the service was rated over all good. We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 6 June 2018. After that inspection we received concerns in relation to the safety of people living in the home and concerns about the leadership of the service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection looking at safe and well led to look into those concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to these topics. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Owlett Hall on our website at www.cqc.org.uk. Owlett Hall 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. Owlett Hall is registered to provide accommodation for up to 50 people who require nursing or personal care. The home is on three levels with lift access and has a garden area and car parking to the front of the building. At the time of this inspection, 46 people were using the service and all were receiving nursing care. The service had a registered manager in post. 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. We found shortfalls in the recording relating to medicines. Poor documentation meant we were unable to determine if all medicines had been given. We also found some medicines which had not been stored and monitored correctly but this was addressed promptly by the manager. We found a lack of completed and accurate records to show when care had been given. Medicines administration records were not always completed, nutritional charts to document people’s food intake had not always been recorded and some audits were not effective in identifying issues. This meant some issues had not been identified through the monitoring systems within the service so that they could be addressed to prevent re occurrence. Staffing levels were sufficient. However, improvements were required to ensure the deployment of staff around the home was effective so people's needs could be met at all times. We have made a recommendation about the deployment of staff. People told us they felt safe living at Owlett Hall. Staff were aware of how to keep people safe from possible harm or abuse. Safeguarding concerns had been investigated and actions taken to prevent future risks. Most risk assessments were carried out and regularly updated to reflect people’s needs. However, we found one risk assessment which had not been followed. The registered manager had ensured the person’s needs were being met during the inspection. Accidents and incidents were managed effectively and actions taken to prevent future risk. The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service. Health and safety checks were carried out on the premises to ensure people’s safety. Following the last inspection, the manager had implemented changes to drive improvement within the home. This included training some senior staff to become unit managers to develop their leadership skills and to provider further oversight for each unit. Annual surveys were carried out to gather people’s views. We also found surveys had been sent to people, relatives and staff when concerns were raised. The regional manager said this was to ensure any concerns were resolved. People, relatives, staff and health professionals all told us the registered manager was approachable and they felt confident to raise any concerns. We identified one breach of the He
6th June 2018 - During a routine inspection
![]() This inspection took place on 6 and 12 June 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in March 2017 we rated the service as Requires improvement. At that inspection we found the provider was in breach of Regulation 19, Fit and proper persons employed, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. During this inspection we found improvements had been made and recruitment was now managed safely. Owlett Hall is purpose built and provides both residential and nursing care for a maximum number of 57 older people. The home is set over three floors, and each room has an ensuite shower room. It has car parking and outside space for people to use. The home has lifts to every floor and is fully accessible. On the first day of our inspection, there were 41 people using the service. On the second day there were 43 people. Owlett Hall 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. There was a registered manager in post. 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. We received mixed views from people who used the service, relatives and staff about staffing levels and how staff were organised. Some said staff were available in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs and to keep them safe whilst others said they did not always feel there were enough staff and this led to people waiting for their care needs to be met. The registered manager said they would review the deployment and organisation of staff to ensure there were sufficient staff at the times they were needed. People told us they felt safe. Staff understood how to keep people safe and told us any potential risks were identified and managed. Risk assessments contained enough detail to enable staff to keep people safe from harm. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly, and any changes were incorporated into people's care plans. Some documentation to support risk management plans was not completed consistently. The registered manager addressed this at the time of our inspection. Safeguarding procedures and policies were in place. Staff and the registered manager were aware of their responsibilities to identify and report any allegations of abuse to the local authority. There was a robust recruitment process to ensure people were protected and cared for by suitable staff. Incidents and accidents were being documented and analysed for patterns and trends to reduce the risk of their re-occurrence. Staff felt well supported and received appropriate training. Staff said they enjoyed working for the service. They were well motivated and committed to providing a service that was personalised to each individual. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s care records clearly identified where people had capacity to make decisions about their care and support. Staff understood people needed to consent to their care and were confident they supported people to make their own decisions. The service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People received assistance with meals and healthcare when required. This supported people to maintain their health and well-being. People engaged in activities which were meaningful and that they enjoyed. People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received and were complimentary about the staff who supported them. We observed positive interactions between people who used the servic
8th March 2017 - During a routine inspection
![]() This inspection took place on 8 March 2017, and was unannounced. At the last inspection we rated the service as inadequate. The provider was in breach of six regulations which related to assessing risk, planning care, ensuring people consented to care, staffing, recruitment of workers and assessing and monitoring the quality and safety of service. At this inspection we found they had made improvements in five areas although some improvements were recent and required time to embed. They had not improved their recruitment procedures. Owlett Hall is registered to accommodate up to 57 older people and provides residential and respite care, and intermediate care for people following hospital stays. The service did not have a registered manager at this inspection or the previous inspection in June 2016. An application to register a manager had been received in May 2016, however, this was terminated in December 2016 because the manager ended their employment at Owlett Hall. Another manager commenced at the beginning of February 2017; they told us they were submitting an application to register. 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. At this inspection we found the registered provider did not always take appropriate action to keep people safe because they did not carry out appropriate checks before employing workers. There were enough staff employed to keep people safe. Deployment of staff was being further developed to make sure people’s needs were met in a timely way at all times. Risks to people were assessed and managed, and checks were carried out to make sure the premises and equipment were safe. We have made a recommendation about installing a new call bell system. Medicines were managed safely. Staff we spoke with said they felt supported in their role and received training to help them understand how to do their job well, however, we saw systems for ensuring staff received regular supervision needed further development. The manager was introducing new supervision arrangements although this was not operational at the time of the inspection. Training records showed staff sometimes completed a lot of training in one day so the manager was going to monitor this closely and introduce a better system for checking staff knowledge. The provider had improved arrangements for making decisions in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; people were encouraged to make decisions and when they required assistance they received support. People had good meal experiences and enjoyed the food. Systems were in place that ensured people accessed appropriate healthcare services. People told us they received a good standard of care and felt respected. They also said their independence was promoted. People who used the service looked well cared for; their personal appearance was well maintained, for example, people’s hair was brushed, and their clothing and glasses were clean. Staff knew people and their needs well, and treated people with respect and dignity. When we looked around the service we saw there was information available to help keep people informed about their rights and what to expect when they experienced care at Owlett Hall. People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt involved in planning their care. Care plans identified how to support people with washing and dressing, rights and consents, medication, continence and communication. People were encouraged to engage in different group and individual activity sessions. The manager held a weekly surgery to encourage and promote feedback. A procedure was in place to respond to concerns and complaints although this had not always been appropriately
14th June 2016 - During a routine inspection
![]() This inspection took place on 15, 16 and 22 June 2016 and was unannounced. At the previous inspection in May 2015 we found three breaches in regulations which related to management of medicines, staffing and safeguarding people from abuse. We rated the service as requires improvement. At this inspection we found the provider was still in breach of one of the same regulations and an additional five regulations. Owlett Hall provides nursing and personal care for a maximum of 57 people. Care is provided in three units. One unit offers a rehabilitation service in conjunction with the NHS; the other two units provide mainly long term care but also offer some short term and respite care. The management team told us there were 54 people using the service when we inspected. At the time of the inspection, 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. A manager was appointed in February 2016 and had applied to be registered. People who used the service, visiting relatives and staff told us there was not enough staff to meet people’s needs. We observed sometimes there were no staff around and people did not receive care in a timely way. There was a lack of equipment that also caused delays in providing care. People could not have a bath because there were no working facilities. Staff did not receive appropriate training and support although the manager had introduced more training opportunities recently. Staff did not understand what they must do to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and did not act within the law. The provider did not have effective recruitment and selection procedures in place so appropriate checks were not carried out before staff started working at the service. People were complimentary about the staff who supported them and told us they received appropriate care. There was a lack of consistency in how people’s care was assessed, planned and delivered. There was not always enough information to guide staff on people’s care and support. Some people had risks associated with their health and well-being but they did not always get appropriate support to make sure they were safe. People’s care records showed they had accessed a range of health professionals but this did not include dental and chiropody services. Information to help keep people informed was displayed; dignity, infection control and safeguarding were promoted. People were made aware about how they could make formal complaints. People enjoyed the food and were offered a choice of meals. Drinks and snacks were offered to people throughout the day. Some people were offered a limited range of activities provided at the home and enjoyed the company of those they lived with. There was a very mixed response about the overall management and leadership. Some felt the service was well managed others felt it was not. The provider’s systems to monitor and assess the quality of service provision were not effective. Actions that had been identified to improve the service were not always implemented. This were disorganised and it was difficult locating some information. The manager was introducing systems to help improve the quality and safety of the service; these were not embedded but improvements in some areas were evident. The overall rating for this provider is ‘Inadequate’. This means that it has been placed into ‘Special measures’ by CQC. The purpose of special measures is to: • Ensure that providers found to be providing inadequate care significantly improve. • Provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and work with
18th May 2015 - During a routine inspection
![]() This inspection took place on 18 May 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in August 2013 we found the provider was meeting the regulations we looked at.
Owlett Hall is a care home with nursing and registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 57 older people. The home is purpose built and set over three floors, and each room has an en-suite shower room. The ground floor unit provides an intermediate care service. The service had 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.
At this inspection we found people were happy living at Owlett Hall. They told us the staff were kind and caring. Throughout the day we observed staff providing care in a caring way. Staff knew the people they were supporting very well.
People told us they felt safe and didn’t have any concerns about the care they received. However, there was a risk to people’s safety because safeguarding procedures were not always followed.
Some incidents between people who used the service had not been reported to the appropriate agencies. Medicines were not always managed consistently and safely. We found people lived in a clean and safe environment.
People enjoyed a range of social activities and had good experiences at mealtimes. People we spoke with told us their health needs were met and care records showed health professional advice was followed.
People consented to their care and treatment. Their care needs were assessed. However, guidance for delivering care was basic and sometimes not up to date so people’s care needs could be overlooked.
The provider was increasing staffing numbers to help ensure there were enough staff to keep people safe. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service. Staff felt supported but the arrangements for supervising and training staff required improvement to ensure staff had the right skills and knowledge to fulfil their role properly.
People told us they would feel comfortable raising concerns or complaints and provided positive feedback about the registered manager. People were involved in the service and helped to drive improvement. Although the provider had a number of systems for monitoring quality and safety these were not always effective.
We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) regulations 2014. You can see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
9th October 2013 - During a routine inspection
![]() During the inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service or their relatives. Everyone said they were satisfied with the quality of care received at the home with many people describing it as excellent. One person told us “Everything is so good, it’s unbelievable.” A relative told us “They work really hard to provide stimulation; they are very attentive and pro-active here.” We found staff treated people with dignity and respect and involved people in their care. We found the provider carried out an assessment of people’s needs so care could be planned and delivered appropriately. The premises were suitably designed, laid out and maintained which ensured the safety and welfare of people who used the service. We found there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. We saw the provider had committed to increase staffing levels further to ensure more personalised support. A robust complaints system was in place which ensured people’s comments and complaints were appropriately investigated and responded to.
23rd November 2012 - During a routine inspection
![]() During our inspection we saw that people were regularly asked for consent before any care or support was given, and that care plan files contained signed consent forms for a range of different things. The care plans we looked at were detailed and up to date. They were regularly reviewed, and people and their families were involved in planning their care. One relative told us “We have been very involved. They have worked with us to look at alternative approaches and options for support that works for my relative”. People were happy living in the service and felt that the care they received was individualised to their needs. We looked at all areas of the home and found it to be clean and hygienic. The staff were trained in infection control and were following the related procedures. Staff received regular opportunities to develop their skills and felt the manager was approachable and supportive. The service carried out regular audits and regularly asked for feedback about the service. Records were up to date and stored appropriately.
17th March 2011 - During a routine inspection
![]() People told us they were happy with the care they received. People said they could make their own decisions each day, for instance, when to get up and when to go to bed. People said they received their care in private and that staff went about their tasks quietly and unobtrusively. They described staff, including the manager of the care home, as very good. People said they were involved in their care decisions and received the care and support they wanted. They said staff understood and respected their needs. People said activities were available and that they could choose to be involved if they wished. People said they were very satisfied with the food and choice available. They said they felt safe at the home, and would be happy to speak to a member of staff if they had any concerns.
|
Latest Additions:
|