This inspection took place on 25 April and 3 May 2018. Day one of the inspection was unannounced, and day two was announced.The Weir 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. This service provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 35 people. At the time of this inspection, there were 31 people living at the home, some of whom were living with Parkinson's disease , motor-neurone disease, and dementia.
There was a registered manager in post, who was present during 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.
At the time of our last inspection undertaken in October 2016, we rated the service as Good. At this inspection, we identified concerns in relation to safe medicine management and the governance in relation to this. The service is now rated Requires Improvement.
Stock balances of medicines had not always been accurately maintained, which meant there were medicines unaccounted for. Where people were prescribed creams, these were not always managed safely, with the wrong creams found in people's bedrooms. As prescribed creams and liquid medicine did not have opening dates on, we could not be assured medicine in use was within its shelf-life period.
Language and terminology used in people's care plans and on staff notice boards was not always in keeping with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Whilst no unlawful restrictions were in place for people, terminology used did not always reflect this.
Although the registered manager, clinical lead and provider had quality assurance measures in place, these had not identified the shortfalls in medicine administration.
The provider had not assured all relevant notifications had been submitted to the CQC, as required by law. Where there were unexplained injuries to people, the CQC had not always been informed.
There were enough staff to meet people's physical and emotional needs. The provider adhered to safe recruitment procedures.
Safety and maintenance checks were routinely carried out at the home to ensure people's physical environment was safe. People were protected from the risk of infection.
Staff received ongoing training and development in their roles, and this training was also made available to people living at the home, and their relatives.
People were encouraged to maintain their health, and were supported with their eating and drinking needs. Orientation boards were used at the home to help people navigate and to know the date and time.
People enjoyed positive and respectful relationships with staff. People's individual communication needs and styles were known. People had access to independent advocates, as required.
People were encouraged to enjoy a range of social and leisure opportunities. Staff knew people well, both in terms of their health and wellbeing needs, and in relation to their personal preferences. Complaints, feedback and suggestions were acted upon.
People, relatives, staff and health professionals were positive about how the home was run. Staff felt valued and motivated in their roles. People were involved in decisions about the running of their home.