Agnes House

Updated 9 January 2021

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.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

This inspection took place on 11 August 2020 and was announced. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

Updated 9 January 2021

We inspected the service unannounced on 14 November 2018. Agnes House provides care and support for up to 26 older people some of whom are living with dementia and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were 26 people using the service.

Agnes House 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.

At our last inspection on 11 April 2016 we rated the service ‘Good’ overall in and in all domains except ‘Responsive’ which was ‘Requires Improvement’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of ‘Good’, with ‘Responsive’ having improved it’s rating to ‘Good’. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing 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.

People continued to receive a safe service. People told us they felt safe because there were enough staff duty and they were experienced. People had risk assessments in place so staff knew how to support them to say safe. People received their medicines when they needed them and staff were kind and patient when they gave medicines out. The home was clean and fresh throughout and staff followed the provider’s infection control policy. If an accident or incident occurred lessons were learnt and staff acted to prevent a reoccurrence.

People continued to receive an effective service. The staff were well-trained, skilled and knowledgeable and had experience of meeting the needs of people from a variety of cultural and religious backgrounds. People told us the food was good and they had plenty of choice at mealtimes.

People had access to the healthcare services they needed and staff knew when they needed to refer them for medical assistance. The premises were spacious with good access to all areas for people with limited mobility. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and sought people’s consent before they cared for them.

People continued to receive a caring service. They told us the staff were caring and kind and went out of their way to support them. People were actively involved in making decisions about their care and support and said the staff respected and promoted their privacy and dignity. The home had its own Chaplin who was based on-site and available to people, relatives and staff for pastoral and spiritual care.

People received a responsive service. People’s care plans were personalised and provided clear instructions to staff on how to meet people’s needs in the way they wanted. People took part in group and/or individual activities depending on what they preferred. Staff listened to people and made improvements to the service if they were needed. People were supported at the end of their lives to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

People continued to receive a well-led service. All the people we spoke with reported high levels of satisfaction with the home and made many positive comments about the care provided. The home had an open and friendly culture. The registered manager carried out audits to ensure the home was running effectively and kept up with changes in legislation and guidance. People, relatives, and staff were encouraged to share their views on the home and contribute to how it was run.

Further information is in the detailed findings below