Plymbridge House

Updated 5 January 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.

Plymbridge House is a residential care home and accommodates a maximum of 40 people. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulated both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection.

This inspection took place on 27, 28, 29 November 2017 and 6 December 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service and contacted the local authority commissioners. We reviewed notifications of incidents that the provider had sent us since their registration. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to send us by law.

We reviewed the information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we met with ten people who used the service and spoke with two visiting relatives for their views on the service. We met a visiting nursing professional during the inspection and spoke with them about people’s care at Plymbridge House. We reviewed people, relatives, staff and professional feedback during the inspection and comments left by people and relatives on a care home reviews website. We spoke with the registered manager and two senior care staff during the inspection.

We looked at ten records which related to people’s individual care needs. We discussed staff recruitment processes with the registered manager, reviewed staff training and looked at the quality assurance processes used to review the quality of the care provided. We discussed complaints, safeguarding and incidents which had occurred within the home over the past 12 months, with the registered manager. We also reviewed policies and procedures, people and staff feedback and the complaints process.

Following the inspection we contacted a doctor, district nurse and social worker for feedback on the service.

Updated 5 January 2018

Plymbridge House is a residential care home which provides care and accommodation for up to 40 older people, some of whom are living with dementia.

This inspection took place on 27, 28 and 29 November 2017 and 6 December 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

At the last inspection in August 2015, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.:

At the time of the inspection, 39 people were using the service.

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 and their relatives told us staff were caring and kind. Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion for people through their conversations and interactions. People told us their privacy and dignity was promoted and they were actively involved in making choices and decisions about how they wanted to live their lives. People were protected from abuse because staff understood what action to take if they were concerned someone was being abused or mistreated.

People received care which was responsive to their needs. People and their relatives were encouraged to be part of the care planning process and to attend or contribute to care reviews where possible. This helped to ensure the care being provided met people’s individual needs and preferences. Support plans were personalised and guided staff to help people in the way they liked.

Risks associated with people’s care and living environment were effectively managed to ensure people’s freedom was promoted. People were supported by consistent staff to help meet their needs in the way they preferred. People’s independence was encouraged and staff helped people feel valued by engaging them in everyday tasks where they were able, for example laying the table and tidying their rooms if they wished. The registered manager and provider wanted to ensure the right staff were employed, so recruitment practices were safe and ensured that checks had been undertaken. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People received care from staff who had undertaken training to be able to meet their unique needs. People’s human rights were protected because the registered manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People’s nutritional needs were met because staff followed people’s support plans to make sure people were eating and drinking enough and potential risks were known. People were supported to access health care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Policies and procedures across the service were being developed to ensure information was given to people in accessible formats when required. People were treated equally and fairly. Staff adapted their communication methods dependent upon people’s needs, for example using simple questions and information for people with cognitive difficulties and information about the service was available in larger print for those people with visual impairments.

The service was well led by the registered manager and provider and supported by a dedicated team. There were quality assurance systems in place to help assess the ongoing quality of the service, and to help identify any areas which might require improvement. Complaints and incidents were learned from to ensure improvement. The registered manager and provider promoted the ethos of honesty and admitted when things had gone wrong. The service kept abreast of changes to maintain quality care.