Archived: Minehead

Updated 29 June 2018

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 30 May 2018 and was unannounced.

This inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included notifications the provider is required by law to send us about events that happen within the service. We also reviewed the information included in the 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.

We looked at the care records for two people at the home. We also looked at three staff files and documents relating to the overall management of the service which included quality assurance audits, complaints records and health and safety maintenance checks.

During the inspection we spoke with two care staff and the registered manager. People living at the home were unable to speak with us and instead we spoke with three people’s relatives.

Prior to our inspection we obtained feedback from two of the teams that had placed people at the home.

Updated 29 June 2018

This inspection took place on 31 May 2018 and was unannounced.

Minehead is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Minehead accommodates six people in one adapted building.

A registered manager was in place at the time of 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.

The home provided a safe environment and action was taken to ensure that this was maintained. We found that updates were required to the provider’s hot water temperature checks, to ensure risks were managed for the temperatures from the kitchen tap. This was immediately rectified following the inspection, with a full risk management plan in place to ensure hot water temperatures were managed safely.

Regular checks of the premises were made to confirm safety, and we observed the home to be clean and hygienic throughout. Infection control processes were in place and staff followed guidance to ensure this was maintained.

People were kept safe, and staff were clear in their responsibilities to safeguard and protect vulnerable people from the risk of abuse. This included safe staff recruitment procedures. Any risks to people were clearly recorded, with appropriate risk management plans in place to mitigate any potential risk factors. People’s medicines were stored, administered and recorded appropriately to ensure that people received their medicines at the times that they needed them.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people at the home, enabling people to stay safe both at home and in the community.

People’s care plans were effective in establishing their needs and providing clear guidance for staff on people’s preferences and the ways they liked to be cared for. Staff received a range of training to support them to develop their skills in supporting people and to maintain their knowledge. Regular supervision and annual appraisal took place to ensure staff received regular support and reviews.

People were supported to maintain healthy, balanced diets in line with their cultural preferences. Where people required support from other healthcare professionals this was organised in a timely manner with outcomes clearly recorded in their care plans.

People’s consent was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA),and any best interests decisions were clearly recorded. When people required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) these had been appropriately applied for.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff knew the individual needs of the people they cared for and were able to speak in detail about their needs and preferences. People were treated with dignity and respect, and supported to maintain any religious beliefs and practices. People and their relatives were fully involved in the care planning and review process.

People received personalised care, that reflected their individual needs. People were supported to maintain relationships with their relatives and there were a range of personalised activities on offer for people. Where appropriate, people’s end of life care wishes were detailed within their care plans. The provider had an accessible complaints policy in place, however since the last inspection only compliments had been received.

The home was supported by a registered manager, who was thought of in high regard by relatives, staff and other professionals. Regular quality assurance audits were in place to monitor quality across the service and feedback was sought from a variety of stakeholders.