Archived: Sandycroft Nursing Home

Updated 5 April 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.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and a specialist professional advisor. The specialist advisor had a nursing background and experience of working with older people.

Prior to our unannounced inspection on 03 & 04 February 2016, we reviewed the information we held about Sandycroft. This included notifications we had received from the provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home. We checked safeguarding alerts, comments and concerns received about the home. At the time of our inspection there were no safeguarding concerns being investigated by the local authority.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (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. The registered manager stated a substantial internal refurbishment and redecoration programme was underway. Additionally, they told us new infection control, medication and environmental safety systems were being developed. Other planned processes included an enhanced staff training programme, a quality assurance auditing system and new care planning forms.

We spoke with a range of people about this service. They included four members of the management team, six staff, six people who lived at the home and three relatives. We discussed the service with the commissioning department at the local authority who told us they had no ongoing concerns about Sandycroft. We did this to gain an overview of what people experienced whilst living at the home.

We also spent time observing staff interactions with people who lived at the home and looked at records. We checked documents in relation to five people who lived at Sandycroft and three staff files. We reviewed records about staff training and support, as well as those related to the management and safety of the home.

Updated 5 April 2016

The inspection visit at Sandycroft was undertaken on 03 & 04 February 2016 and was unannounced.

Sandycroft provides nursing care and support for a maximum of 26 people who live with dementia and/or a physical disability or sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living at the home. Sandycroft is situated in a residential area of Blackpool close to local amenities. There are three floors offering single room accommodation for people who live at the home. There are ample toilet and bathing facilities and a large communal area for people’s use.

A registered manager was 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.

At the last inspection on 15 April 2014, we found the provider was meeting all the requirements of the regulations inspected. The inspection was undertaken with the previous provider. Another organisation has since taken over Sandycroft and registered as the new provider. Our inspection on 03 & 04 February 2016 was undertaken with the new provider.

During this inspection, we saw the provider was undertaking a substantial refurbishment and redecoration programme. The registered manager had kept us informed about the work already completed, being undertaken and planned for the future. This included the full consultation with and the involvement of people who lived at the home, staff and visitors. The management team told us this was for the benefit of people’s welfare and safety.

We observed the refurbishment work was being completed in a phased way in order to minimise disruption to the service. We saw records contained evidence of people and their relatives being involved in the entire process. This included consultation through surveys and ‘resident’ meetings. We found this was improving the living environment and had benefitted people’s well-being and safety. This showed the provider worked openly with CQC in ongoing service disruption and had involved people in planned environmental change.

We saw the management team assessed and analysed accidents to reduce risks to people, staff and visitors. People were protected from potential hazards because risk assessments had been completed to maintain their safety. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to protect people from potential harm or abuse. One staff member said, “At the end of the day, we’re here to give the residents the best possible care. How can we do this if we don’t report poor practice?”

We observed staff worked in a patient and unhurried way in their duties. We found there were sufficient staffing levels and skill mixes to meet people’s requirements. The management team had recruited suitable staff to maintain the safety of individuals who lived at Sandycroft. Where required, the registered manager had monitored staff members’ professional registrations to ensure they were current. Staff told us they were effectively trained to carry out their duties. One staff member said, “There’s no end of courses.”

We observed medicines were stored in a secure, clean environment. Staff were trained and underwent regular competency tests to assess their ongoing proficiency. The registered manager regularly audited all related processes to monitor the safe management of people’s medicines.

Staff supported people to meet their nutritional needs in a discrete and respectful way. Individuals who lived at the home said they had a choice of what to eat. They told us they enjoyed their meals.

When we discussed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, staff demonstrated a good awareness. We observed people were not deprived of their liberty and had consented to care and treatment.

Staff demonstrated a kind and respectful approach when they engaged with individuals who lived at the home. Staff had recorded people’s wishes and consistently promoted their privacy and dignity.

Care records we checked did not always provide staff with clear guidance to meet people’s needs. There were gaps in documentation and care plans lacked detail to assist staff in how to support individuals. However, we noted a new, more in-depth assessment, planning and evaluation system was being implemented. We observed staff supported people with a personalised approach and consistently offered choice before they assisted them. The registered manager told us, “Staff feel more supported and residents’ needs are considered rather than being task-orientated.”

We have made a recommendation about the registered manager seeking guidance related to recordkeeping and care planning.

Staff, people and their representatives told us the home was well organised and had good leadership. The management team sought feedback from people, relatives and external healthcare professionals. The outcomes of comments were analysed, acted on and displayed in a transparent way. The registered manager had regularly completed a range of audits to maintain people’s safety and welfare.