Harry Sotnick House

Updated 16 June 2022

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by five inspectors, and three additional inspectors supported the inspection remotely by reviewing records and contacting staff and people. Two Experts by Experience also spoke to people and their relatives by phone. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Harry Sotnick House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and/or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. Harry Sotnick House is a care home with nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well and improvements they plan to make. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service and 22 relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 18 members of staff including the registered manager, deputy manager, unit manager, clinical lead, nurses, care workers, maintenance person, activities person, chef and domestic staff.

We reviewed a range of records. This included 10 people’s care records and medication records. We looked at five staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 16 June 2022

About the service

Harry Sotnick House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 92 people. It is split in to two units. The nursing unit is on the ground floor and supports people living with dementia and physical frailty. The ‘discharge to assess’ unit is on the first floor and supports people for a short time who have been discharged from hospital, prior to them moving on to their longer-term placement. At the time of our inspection there were 81 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider’s quality assurance systems were not fully effective in identifying all concerns in the service. We have made a recommendation about this. When the provider was made aware of any issues they acted promptly and effectively to address them.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Risks associated with people’s needs and health conditions were effectively assessed, monitored and mitigated. Staff knew people well and understood how to support them safely. People were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had effective safeguarding systems in place.

Recruitment practices were safe and there were enough staff available to meet people's needs. Effective systems were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection.

People were mostly 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.

Staff told us they had enough training to carry out their roles effectively and were well supported. The provider worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure joined up care and good outcomes for people. People were supported in a personalised way to eat and drink well.

People and relatives spoke positively about the care people received. People were supported by kind and caring staff, treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

People’s needs were met in a personalised way. People had been supported to maintain relationships and to take part in activities that were enjoyable and meaningful for them. The provider used complaints to improve the quality of care. People received compassionate care at the end of their lives and were appropriately supported at this time.

The service had a positive person-centred culture. Although the provider had an open and honest approach, records needed improving to demonstrate how they met the duty of candour requirements. We have made a recommendation about this.

People, relatives and staff provided us with positive feedback about the management team and thought the home was well-led. They also told us they would recommend the home to others.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 1 April 2020 and this is the first inspection. The last rating for the service under the previous provider was good (published 28 December 2019).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted in part, by a review of the information we held about this service and based on the date it registered with us.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Recommendations

We have made recommendations for the provider to improve their practice in relation to duty of candour and governance.

We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.