Homeacre

Updated 8 December 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 visit took place on the 13 November 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a 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 reviewed previous reports and notifications that are held on the CQC database. Notifications are important events that the service must let the CQC know about by law. We also reviewed safeguarding alerts and information received from a local authority.

During our inspection we spoke with two people who lived in the home and two visiting healthcare professionals. We spoke with the provider, assistant manager, and two care workers. We reviewed a care file, medication records, one staff recruitment file, audits and information held in relation to the running of the service.

Updated 8 December 2018

We Inspected the service on the 13 November 2018.

Homeacre is a residential care home for five people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection four people were using the service. The service has spacious living areas and is set over two floors with a stairlift in place should this be needed. The service is set in a residential area with easy access to the local community and has a large garden. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and 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.

The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were safeguarded from the potential of harm and their freedoms protected. Staff were provided with training in Safeguarding Adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink to ensure their dietary and nutritional needs were met. The service worked well with other professionals to ensure people's health needs were met. The environment was appropriately designed and adapted to meet people’s needs.

The service was caring. Staff were well trained and attentive to people's needs. Staff could demonstrate that they knew people well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The service was responsive. Records showed people and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and when there was a change in care needs. People were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. These activities were diverse to meet people’s social needs. People knew how to make a complaint should they need to. People were provided with the appropriate care and support at the end of their life.

The service was well-led. The provider had a number of ways of gathering people’s views. They held regular meetings with people and their relatives and used questionnaires to gain feedback. The provider carried out quality monitoring to help ensure the service was running effectively and to make continual improvements.