Archived: Saffrons Care Home

Updated 8 December 2016

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 unannounced inspection took place on 19 November 2016. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

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 the PIR and other information we held about the home. This included past reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We spoke with six people who lived at the service. Not everyone was able to give us their verbal views of the care and support they received due to their health needs. 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 had a limited ability to with us. We looked around the premises and observed care practices.

We spoke with the registered manager, the provider, four members of staff, four relatives and a visitor. We looked at care documentation for three people living at the service, medicines records, three staff files, training records and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 8 December 2016

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 19 November 2016. This was the first time the service had been inspected under the current registration.

Saffrons Care Home is a care home which provides care and support for up to 20 predominantly older people. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people living at the service. Some of these people were living with dementia. The service is in a residential area of Eastbourne but close to the town centre. The accommodation is spread across three floors serviced by a passenger lift. There were two lounge areas where people could choose to spend their time.

The service had a registered manager in post who was also one of the two registered providers. Day to day management of the service was carried out by the registered manager supported by the other registered provider. 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.

There were enough staff to help ensure people’s health and social needs were met. Staff were effectively deployed across the service and people’s needs were met in a timely manner. Staff were friendly and compassionate in their approach to people. People commented; “Lovely staff, very caring and patient” and “The staff have been very helpful and are always around. You don’t have to wait long if you need them.”

Risk assessments were in place with information to guide staff on how to protect people from any identified risk. We observed staff supporting people in a safe way when they were helping to move them from their chair to a wheelchair. People’s assessments were reviewed and updated regularly to help ensure they reflected their changing needs.

People told us they received their medicines as prescribed. The system for storing medicines was safe but under review. The registered manager had ordered a medicines trolley and medicines fridge to ensure the storage of medicines was robust. While the recording of medicines which required stricter controls was accurate, the record book was not a bound ledger. We have made a recommendation to the provider to obtain a more robust ledger as advised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Staff received an induction into their role when they started working at the service. Training was refreshed and staff told us it was effective. Recruitment processes were satisfactory; for example pre-employment checks had been completed to help ensure staff were suitable to work in the care sector.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a good understanding of the potential signs of abuse and how to report it. All were confident that any allegations would be fully investigated and action would be taken to make sure people were safe.

Staff supported people to be involved in and make decisions about their daily lives. People chose where they spent their time, when they got up and when they went to bed. Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Care plans were well organised and contained information covering all aspects of people’s health and social care needs. Care planning was reviewed regularly and people’s changing needs recorded. Where appropriate, relatives were included in the reviews.

People were able to take part in a range of activities of their choice. Entertainers visited the service as well as people giving talks on different topics. Where people wanted to stay in their rooms this was respected by staff.

There were a variety of methods in use to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys for people using the service and their relatives. Overall satisfaction with the service was seen to be positive and results of the most recent survey were available for people to view at various entry points to the service.

People using the service and visitors all described the management of the service as open and approachable and thought people received a good service. Relatives told us, “We chose this home because we had heard really good reports about it and we have not been disappointed” and “It’s run in a way which is homely. We always feel welcomed when we visit”.