- Care home
Patron House
Report from 19 June 2024 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment 26 June to 18 July 2024. Patron House is a care home which is registered to provide accommodation, personal care and support to older people. Up to 12 people can live there. The service is in an adapted, detached house in a residential area of Bristol. In this assessment, we looked at all the quality statements in the safe, effective and well led key questions. At the last inspection, the service was rated requires improvement in these key questions and overall. In this assessment, we found the service remains requires improvement in safe and well led. The rating for the effective key question has changed to good. The ratings for the quality statements we did not assess remain unchanged. We found shortfalls relating to staffing, infection prevention and control and the safe management of medicines. Some statutory notifications had not been submitted and systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service did not always identify or address the issues we found during this assessment. Changes had been made to food and the dining experience, and people’s nutrition and hydration needs were being met. People appeared comfortable living at the service and staff knew people well and understood their needs. Records supported staff to care for people safely. There were plans to ensure there was a stable leadership team at the service and the provider promoted ongoing service development and innovation. We found there were breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives were positive about the care they received and the staff who supported them. They described staff as being kind, patient and competent. People appeared comfortable around staff and told us they felt safe living at the service. People and their relatives told us they were able to speak with staff if they had concerns. Where possible, people were informed about risks, and they understood staff had responsibilities to keep them safe. People were confident in the skills and abilities of staff. People’s views and wishes were considered as far as possible, and staff gained consent from people and encouraged them to make choices. People were supported to make health and wellbeing decisions, for example about their own pain relief or their daily routines. We saw people’s health needs were met and specialists or professionals were involved as necessary. People received support to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They gave us mixed feedback about the choices they had regarding food. People were not sure about how their needs were monitored, but they were generally satisfied with the support they received. Some relatives told us they were involved in discussions about people’s care plans and risk assessments, although others were less clear about this. People had experienced positive outcomes such as weight gain, more stable mental state and more social contact. Relatives said staff knew their family members well and understood their needs. Visitors were welcome in the home, and relatives were encouraged to look around the service before their family member moved there.