Archived: The Old Vicarage at Airmyn

Updated 9 December 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 registered 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.

The inspection took place on 6 and 31 October 2016 and the first day of the inspection was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care (ASC) inspector.

Before this inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home, such as information we had received from the local authority who commissioned a service from the registered provider and notifications we had received from the registered provider. Notifications are documents that the registered provider submits to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to inform us of important events that happen in the service. The registered provider was asked to submit a provider information return (PIR) before this inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIR was submitted within the required timescale.

On the day of the inspection we spoke with four people who lived at the home, four members of staff, the manager and the registered provider. We looked around communal areas of the home and some bedrooms, with people’s permission. We also spent time looking at records, which included the care records for two people who lived at the home, the recruitment and training records for two members of staff and other records relating to the management of the home, including quality assurance, staff training, health and safety and medication. We observed the interaction between staff and people who lived at the home who were not able to speak with us.

Following the first inspection date we spoke with five members of staff and two relatives on the telephone.

Updated 9 December 2016

This inspection took place on 6 and 31 October 2016 and the first day of the inspection was unannounced. We arranged to return to the home for a second day to share additional feedback with the registered provider. The home was last inspected on 9 February 2016. That inspection was to check on requirements that had been made at the previous inspection on 4 June 2015. We found that the registered provider had made the required improvements.

The home is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 19 older people, including people who are living with dementia. On the day of the inspection there were 19 people living at the home. The home is situated in Airmyn, a village that is close to the town of Goole, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The premises have two floors; the ground floor is on two levels with a stair lift to assist people with the internal stairs. The first floor is accessed by a passenger lift. There is one shared bedroom and all other bedrooms are single, most with en-suite facilities. There are communal bathrooms or showers on each floor.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was no manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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. The previous manager had left the organisation and a new manager had been appointed. They had commenced the registration process with CQC.

New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies and this ensured that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people worked at The Old Vicarage at Airmyn. We saw that there were insufficient numbers of staff on duty during the afternoon / evenings. This had been recognised by the registered provider and they were in the process of recruiting staff to fill these gaps.

People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because there were effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm. There was evidence that the registered provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We checked medication systems and saw that medicines were stored and administered safely, although some minor improvements were needed in respect of recording. Staff who had responsibility for the administration of medication had received appropriate training.

People who lived at the home and relatives told us that staff were very caring and that they respected people’s privacy and dignity. We observed and were told that staff had a good understanding of people’s individual care and support needs.

A variety of activities were provided to meet people’s individual needs, and people were encouraged to take part. People’s family and friends were made welcome at the home.

People told us that they were very happy with the food provided. We observed that people’s nutritional needs had been assessed and individual food and drink requirements were met.

The premises were clean, hygienic and well maintained. We saw there was appropriate signage, decoration and prompts to assist people in finding their way around the home.

There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home. People told us they were confident their complaints and concerns would be listened to. Any complaints made to the home had been investigated and appropriate action had been taken in response to the complaints.

Staff confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them.

Some staff, people who lived at the home and relatives told us that the home was well managed. However, numerous concerns were shared with us by other staff and a relative. We addressed this by meeting with the registered provider on a second inspection day. The registered provider submitted an action plan to tell us how they would be dealing with these concerns.

Quality audits undertaken by the registered provider and the manager were designed to identify that systems at the home were protecting people’s safety and well-being. When quality audits had identified that improvements needed to be made, there was not always a record of when actions had been completed.