Archived: The Poppies Residential Care Home

Updated 31 October 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 checked 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 4 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed information available to us about this service. The registered provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). 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. We also reviewed notifications that had been sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

We requested information about the home from Healthwatch and the local authority. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion, which promotes the views and experiences of people who use health and social care. The local authority has responsibility for funding people who use the service and monitoring its safety and quality.

During the inspection we spent time with people in the communal areas of the home and we saw how staff supported the people they cared for. 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.

We spoke with six people who lived at the home and two relatives, to find out what they thought about the care provided. We gained the views of a health and social care professional who provided support to people living at the home. We also spoke with the registered manager and four staff members.

We reviewed three people’s care records, and checked how people were supported to take their medicines. We looked at staff recruitments checks and reviewed how the registered manager monitored the quality of the care provided. We saw the actions the registered manager took to develop the service futher. This included minutes of meetings with people and their relatives, minutes of staff meetings and analysis of accidents and incidents. We saw procedures showing how staff would respond to any complaints. We also saw how staff communicated people’s changing needs with other health and social care professionals, so they would continue to receive the care they wanted, as their needs changed.

Updated 31 October 2018

The Poppies 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. The Poppies provides accommodation and care for up to 12 people, across two floors. There were nine people living at the home at the time of our visit.

At the last inspection in March 2016 the services was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager 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.

People continued to be supported to stay as safe as possible. Staff took people’s safety needs into account and responded to their individual safety needs, whilst promoting their independence. There were sufficient staff to care for people, spend time chatting with them and meet their needs.

Systems were in place to promote the safe administration of people’s medicines, and to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring. People benefited from living in a home where checks were made on the safety of the home and the support provided. Learning was taken from any untoward incidents.

People’s care preferences and needs were assessed before they came to live at the home. The views of other health and social care professionals were considered when staff assessed if they would be able to meet people’s needs.

Staff had taken opportunities offered to develop their skills and knowledge further, and people were complimentary about the way they were cared for. We saw staff used their skills and knowledge of people’ individual preferences when caring for them.

People told us they decided what they wanted to eat and drink and enjoyed their meal time experiences. Where people needed some support and encouragement to have enough to eat and drink staff assisted them. People benefited from living in a home where staff had developed positive relationships with health care professionals. This helped people to get the specialist help they needed promptly.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Strong bonds of friendship had grown between people and the staff who cared for them, and people told us they were treated very kindly by staff. This was evidenced in the respectful way staff supported people and took their rights to dignity and privacy into account. Staff supported people in ways which maximised their independence.

People, their relatives and other health and social care professional’s views were the focus when staff planned people’s care with them. This helped to ensure people were offered care which reflected their unique needs and levels of independence. Staff adapted how they supported people, so people were in the best position to make their own decisions about what care they wanted.

There were systems in place to support people to raise any concerns they had or to make a complaint. Everyone we spoke with told us they had not wanted to make any complaints because the care provided was good.

The registered manager spent time supporting and chatting with people, so they could be assured people were receiving good quality care. People were positive about how the home was run and told us this meant they liked living at the home. Relatives were complimentary about how the home was managed.

We saw effective way of working had been established with other organisation so people would continue to benefit from receiving the care they needed. Staff told us they were supported well, and were confident if they raised any concerns or made any suggestions to develop care further the registered manager would take action.

Checks were made by the provider and registered manager so they could be sure people received good care.