What the CQC found at Haywood Lodge

Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, comfort and conversation. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the staff's kindness and care.

“People were treated with care, kindness and warmth.” from the report

Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely at the time of the visit. Staff responded in a timely way when people needed help or used their call bells.

“When people needed support, or used their call bells, staff responded in a timely way.” from the report

People and their relatives were involved in care planning and decisions. Regular residents' meetings gave people opportunities to suggest activities and outings.

“People were supported to contribute towards care planning and decisions about their current and future care.” from the report

A dedicated activities coordinator organised individual and group activities based on people's wishes and preferences.

“Individual and group activities took place at the service based upon people's wishes and preferences.” from the report

Some risk assessments and care plans were inaccurate or out of date. One person had four falls before their falls assessment was reviewed and a sensor was put in place.

“Risks to people were assessed and used to develop care plans. However, risks were not always well managed because risk assessments and care plans were not always accurate or up to date.” from the report

A concern reported to the acting manager was not recorded at the time, and the person who raised it was not spoken to for more information.

“No record was made at the time and the person who reported the concern was not spoken to, in order to gather further information.” from the report

Medicine records did not always explain how medicines should be given safely. Inspectors were also not fully assured that infection control practices and policies were being followed.

“Risk assessments and care plans did not always contain the information needed to administer medicines safely.” from the report

There was no registered manager, and governance checks did not consistently identify and reduce risks quickly. Responsibility for some areas, including catheter records and special diets, was unclear.

“Governance processes did not always operate effectively to ensure risks to people's safety were continually mitigated.” from the report

One person's recommended fortified diet had not been provided because the information had not been shared with the chef. Care plans were also not always updated when people's needs changed.

“People did not always receive the specialised diets they were assessed as needing.” from the report