Background to this inspection
Updated
3 February 2016
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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 26 and 27 November 2015 and was unannounced. The visit was undertaken by one inspector and an expert by experience on the first day and the inspector on the second. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.
Prior to the inspection we looked at the information we had about this provider. We also spoke with service commissioners (people who purchase care and support from this service on behalf of people who live in this home) to obtain their views.
Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission about specific events and incidents
that occur including serious injuries to people receiving care and any safeguarding matters. Appropriate notifications had been sent by the registered provider.
All this information was used to plan what areas we were going to focus on during the inspection.
During the inspection we met and spoke with eight of the people who were receiving support and / or care. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.
We spoke with six relatives of people living at the home and spoke at length with two members of care staff, one senior care assistant, one activity co-coordinator, the cook, the laundry assistant and the registered manager. We spoke with two visiting health and social care professionals during the inspection.
We spent time observing day to day life and the support people were offered. We looked at some records including five people’s care plans and medication administration records to see if people were receiving the care they needed. We sampled two staff files including the recruitment process. We sampled records about training plans, resident and staff meetings, and sampled the registered providers quality assurance and audit records to see how the registered manager monitored the quality of the service.
Updated
3 February 2016
We inspected this home on 26 and 27 November 2015. This was an unannounced Inspection. The home was registered to provide residential care and accommodation for up to 28 older people. At the time of our inspection 28 people were living at the home.
The registered manager was present during our inspection. 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 that people using this service were safe. People told us they were encouraged to raise any concerns they had and this was confirmed by relatives. We found that staff knew how to recognise when people might be at risk of potential harm and were aware of the registered provider’s procedures for reporting any concerns.
We received positive comments from people using the service and their relatives about the staffing arrangements in the home. Staff followed instructions to minimise known risks to people’s health and well-being. Measures had been put into place to ensure risks were managed appropriately.
People were supported by staff who had received training and who had been supported to obtain qualifications. This ensured that the care provided was safe and followed best practice guidelines. Robust recruitment checks were in place to ensure new staff were suitable to work with people using the service.
People told us they received their medicines safely. Staff responsible for administering medicines had received relevant training.
Some staff we spoke with were not knowledgeable of the requirements and their responsibilities in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Some necessary applications to apply for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to protect the rights of people had not been submitted to the local supervisory body for authorisation.
People told us they had access to a variety of food and drink which they enjoyed. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to help them to maintain good health. People told us they were supported to have access to a wide range of health care professionals.
People told us that they were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. Some care plans we saw did not include people’s personal history, individual preferences and interests. They did not reflect people’s care and support needs or contain specific information and guidance for staff to enable them to provide individualised care and support.
People told us, or indicated that they were happy living at the home. Some people told us they continued to pursue individual interests and hobbies that they enjoyed. Some people did not have the opportunity to participate in meaningful activities.
People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise complaints. The complaints procedure was displayed in different formats to support people’s preferred way of communicating.
Whilst there were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We found some of the quality audits were not robust enough to identify and address areas of concern in ensuring the home was compliant with the regulations and consistently meeting people’s needs.
We recommend that the registered provider’s quality assurance arrangements are improved to identify areas of concern, to ensure the home was compliant with the regulations, and consistently meeting people’s needs.