We carried out a review of the data available to us about Carleton House Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Carleton House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The service was supporting people to stay in touch with relatives and friends. Current government guidance on visiting was being followed.
Regular COVID-19 testing of staff, visitors, and people using the service was taking place.
The environment was clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules and products had been reviewed during the pandemic to help support this.
There was plenty of personal protective equipment (PPE) available. Staff were using this correctly to help prevent the spread of transmission.
Carleton House Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 20 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 27 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We have made a recommendation that the provider seeks advice and guidance on the development of formal quality monitoring processes. Care plans and other records relating to people's care also required further work as they did not always provide detailed information for staff on how to support people, this included information people’s wishes and preferences, Whilst further work was required in this area there was no impact on the quality of the service provided. Everyone we spoke with felt the service delivered a person centred service of good quality. There was a positive, open and homely culture and atmosphere. People, relatives, and staff were engaged and listened to. The management team and provider were committed to developing the service and worked with other external professionals to maintain and improve upon the quality of the service delivered.
People were supported to stay safe. Risks to people, including from the environment, were assessed and managed. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed. There was a good standard of cleanliness in the home and staff took action to reduce the risk of the spread of infections. People were supported by a consistent and stable staff group, there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.
People were supported by competent staff who understood their needs. Staff applied best practice guidance to achieve good outcomes for people using the service. People were supported to eat and drink enough. Staff took action to ensure the meals offered met people’s needs and preferences. People were supported to look after their health needs, this included staff working in collaboration with health care professionals. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well. People were respected as individuals. People were supported to express their views and make decisions regarding their support. Staff treated people respectfully and supported their dignity.
People were provided with person centred care that met their needs and preferences. Staff encouraged people to engage in their hobbies and interests. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. Communication with relatives was good and relatives, where appropriate, felt involved and consulted in the care provided. Regular planned activities in the home were provided to people. People and their relatives were supported sensitively and compassionately when people were at the end of their lives. The service had not received any complaints but people and relatives felt comfortable and able to discuss any concerns they had with the management team.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 4 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
People were safe living in the home. Risks to people including risks from the premises were responded to and managed. Staff demonstrated an awareness of adult safeguarding and knew how to identify possible concerns. The service reported safeguarding concerns appropriately and when required.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The service assessed how many staff were required depending on people’s individual needs and adjusted staffing figures accordingly.
Medicines were managed and stored safely. Regular audits were taken on medicines to check and ensure they were managed safely.
Staff received appropriate support and training to effectively undertake their roles. The provider had a training plan in place to further develop staff knowledge.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. Some improvement was needed regarding documentation of how the act was being applied in practice. However, the registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Act and ensured they consulted appropriate people regarding decisions made in people’s best interests.
People received appropriate support to eat and nutritional risks to people were managed. People had a choice of what they wanted to eat and where.
Staff responded to changes in people’s health care needs and people were supported to access a range of health care services.
People were supported by staff who cared for them and treated them respectfully. People, relatives, and staff told us they felt part of one big family. People felt listened to and had opportunities to discuss their care needs.
Staff supported people in a way that met their individual needs and preferences. Most people in the home were able to entertain and engage themselves in activities of their choice. There was a lack of planned formal activities and outings on offer, however, the provider had plans in place to address this.
Care plans were written in a way that recognised people as individuals, provided sufficient guidance for staff, and were up to date.
People and relatives felt able to raise concerns and confident that these would be addressed appropriately.
The registered manager and provider were visible in the service. They monitored the quality of the service being delivered although there was a lack of formal records relating to this.
People, relatives, and staff spoke positively about the service and the registered manager. There was an inclusive and homely atmosphere. People and staff spoke of a wider sense of family in the service. Staff told us they felt supported and listened to by the management.