Archived: Freeland House Nursing Home

Updated 29 April 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to look at the overall quality of the service.

This inspection took place on 6 and 7 April 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). The provider had completed and submitted their PIR. This 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 also reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally required to tell us about.

Throughout our inspection we spent time observing care throughout the service. We spoke to 11 people and four relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, one nurse, two senior care practitioners, a care assistant and the chef. In addition we spoke with one external healthcare professional.

We looked at records, which included nine people’s care records and sixteen medication administration records (MAR). We checked recruitment files for five staff and staff training and supervision records. We also looked at a range of records about how the service was managed.

Following the inspection we contacted a number of external health and social care professionals, commissioners and six more relatives to obtain their views about the service.

Updated 29 April 2017

We inspected this service on 6 and 7 April 2017. Freeland House Nursing Home provides personal, nursing care and accommodation for up to 65 people. On the day of our inspection 60 people were living at the service. This included 10 people staying in ‘hub’ beds. These were short term placements commissioned as an assessment stage following a hospital discharge. At the last inspection in March 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.

Freeland House Nursing Home had a clear management structure with an established long standing registered manager. They were supported by staff that had worked at the service for a significant length of time. The registered manager had a 'hands on' approach and was always available to offer support and guidance. The senior team worked closely with staff ensuring the day to day practices were closely monitored.

There was a very high level of confidence in the leadership and management of the service expressed by people, relatives, external professionals and staff. The team at Freeland House encouraged people to raise any issues of concern which were taken seriously. The management team took appropriate action taken as needed.

The registered manager proactively sourced any development opportunities to make sure staff followed current practice and provided a high quality service and that the quality of care delivered was enhanced. The registered manager worked closely with other agencies and promoted an open and transparent culture with a strong emphasis on continually striving to improve the service. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided and the provider had a clear plan on further development of the service.

People told us they were safe. Staff knew how to report any safeguarding concerns and were aware of the provider’s whistle blowing policy. People’s care plans contained detailed risk assessments that covered areas such as skin integrity, mobility, nutrition and falls. Where people were at risk, their records outlined management plans on how to keep them safe. People were supported by sufficient staff to keep them safe and the provider ensured safe recruitment practices were followed. This helped the management make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Staff were skilled and knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities and had relevant experience. Staff were well supported, motivated and enthusiastic about working with people.

People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were stored securely and as per manufacturers’ guidance. People were protected from risk of infection as staff adhered to infection control guidelines. People benefitted from continuity of staff and were able to develop caring relationships with staff. People’s dignity and privacy were respected. People’s wishes in relation to their end of life care were recorded and respected.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and have a choice of meals. People complimented the food at the service and told us their preferences were catered for. External health professionals were positive about the service and told us people were referred appropriately. Records showed people had access to a range of health professionals and their advice was incorporated into care planning. People’s care records were detailed, reviewed regularly and updated when people’s needs changed.

People had opportunities to engage in choice of activities. People benefitted from an impressive environment and many communal areas that included a tea room and well maintained garden. People knew how to raise any issues and their concerns were responded to by the registered manager. The registered manager ensured peoples’ and relatives’ views were sought and appropriate action taken when required.