The inspection took place on 5 and 12 June 2015. St Nectans Residential Care Home was last inspected on 6 September 2013 and no concerns were identified.
St Nectans Residential Care Home is a care home for up to 28 older people that require support and personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people living in the home. The home is owned by St. Nectans Residential Care Home Limited and is located in the centre of Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex.
The people living at St Nectans Residential Care home all lived with a degree of physical frailty. There were also people who were living with a dementia type illness, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and heart disease.
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 spoke positively of the home and commented they felt safe. Our own observations and the records we looked at reflected the positive comments people made. However we also found that there were some shortfalls that could potentially impact on people’s safety and well-being.
People were not consistently safe. Care plans and risk assessments included people’s assessed level of care needs, action for staff to follow and an outcome to be achieved. However not all were up to date. This meant that staff were not fully informed of people’s changed needs in respect of end of life care, diabetes, visual impairment and mobility. Whilst people’s medicines were stored safely and in line with legal regulations, medicine administration records (MAR) were not consistently completed.
Accidents and incidents were not all recorded appropriately and steps had not been taken by the staff to minimise the risk of similar events happening in the future. Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been not been identified and managed effectively. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff, however the evacuation plans did not reflect the decrease in staff in the afternoon and night. People’s mobility and cognitive abilities were changing and there had not been the environmental changes necessary to ensure their safety. This pertains to window restrictors, stairs and open stairwells.
Where people’s health had changed considerably, care plans did not reflect the changes and therefore staff were potentially uninformed of important changes to care delivery. The lack of opportunity for outings and walks for people at this time impacted negatively on people’s social well-being.
A quality monitoring system was in place but was not effective to enable the service to highlight the kind of issues raised within this inspection, such as high number of unwitnessed incidents and accidents and medication administration shortfalls.
People were happy and relaxed with staff. They said they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to support them. One person told us, “I feel safe here. I was living on my own and I am glad I live here.”
When staff were recruited, their employment history was checked and references obtained. Checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the home. Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The management team understood when an application should be made and how to submit one.
Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions, the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.
Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, such as diabetes and administrating insulin. Staff had received both one to one and group supervision meetings with their manager, and formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals were in place.
People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. One person said, “I like the food and I can choose what I want”. There was a varied daily choice of meals and people were able to give feedback and have choice in what they ate and drank. People were advised on healthy eating and special dietary requirements were met. People’s weight was monitored, with their permission. Health care was accessible for people and appointments were made for regular check-ups as needed.
People told us they enjoyed the activities, which included singing, films, and visiting entertainers. People were encouraged to stay in touch with their families and receive visitors.
People felt well looked after and supported, and were encouraged to be as independent as possible. We observed friendly and genuine relationships had developed between people and staff. One person told us, “They treat us well, we are looked after very well, plenty to eat and my room is kept clean and tidy.” A visitor told us, “Kind and helpful, we know our relative is safe and happy.”
People were encouraged to express their views and completed surveys, and feedback received showed people were satisfied overall, and felt staff were friendly and helpful. People also said they felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed. One person said, “If there is anything wrong, they sort it out quickly”.
We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.