This inspection took place on 18 and 22 December 2014 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting.
Leazes Hall Care Home is situated in the village of Burnopfield, County Durham. It is an extended Grade II Listed building originally built in the late 18th century and set in its own grounds with outstanding views from the back and well maintained gardens to the front. The accommodation included 48 bedrooms, 3 lounges, 2 dining rooms, a conservatory, several bathrooms and communal toilets.
Leazes Hall Care Home provides nursing care and accommodation for up to 50 people. On the days of our inspection there were 48 people using the service.
The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
Leazes Hall Care Home was last inspected by CQC on 19 August 2013 and was compliant.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. We discussed DoLS with the manager and looked at records. We found the manager was following the requirements of DoLS.
We found evidence of mental capacity assessments or best interest decision making in the care records. Staff were following the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make particular decisions and the provider had made applications under the Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for people being restricted of their liberty.
People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.
The levels of staff provided were based on the dependency needs of residents.
The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff.
Training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions and appraisals, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.
People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people in the dining room at lunch time when required.
The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home but could be more suitably designed for people with dementia.
People who used the service were complimentary about the standard of care at Leazes Hall Care Home. They told us, “I am very happy with the home.” and “I can’t say anything against the staff they are wonderful.”
We saw staff supporting and helping to maintain people’s independence. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to care for themselves where possible.
We saw that the home had a programme of activities in place for people who used the service.
All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed before they moved into Leazes Hall Care Home and we saw care plans were written in a person centred way.
We saw that pre-admission assessments had been carried out. We saw that daily records were up to date. Care plans and risk assessments were in place when required. Care plan reviews were up to date.
We saw weight, malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST), food charts, fluid balance charts and waterlow records, which assess the risk of a person developing a pressure ulcer, were completed regularly and were up to date.
We saw records of visits by healthcare professionals, such as GP’s, social worker, speech and language therapist, podiatrist, falls team, community psychiatric nurse, physiotherapist, dentist and district nurse.
We saw evidence that people using the service, their relatives, visitors or stakeholders were asked about the quality of the service provided.