Archived: Cottingham Hall

Updated 29 November 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 took place on 2 and 3 October 2018 and was unannounced on the first day. On both days, the inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector. The first day also included a dental inspector who looked in detail at how well the service supported people with their oral health.

We used 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. We also checked our systems for any notifications that had been sent in as these would tell us how the provider managed incidents and accidents that affected the welfare of people who used the service.

Prior to the inspection, we contacted various agencies for information. These included local authority safeguarding, contracts and commissioning teams, continuing health teams and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We spent time in communal areas and observed how staff interacted with people who used the service throughout the day and at lunchtime. 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 could not talk with us.

We spoke with seven people who used the service and two relatives. Four other relatives provided information to us about the service. We spoke with the provider’s representative, the registered manager, one senior care worker, four care workers, an activity coordinator and the cook. We also received information from three night care workers and four health and social care professionals.

We looked at three care files which belonged to people who used the service and risk assessments for another four people. We also looked at other important documentation such as medication administration records (MARs) for nine people, an information pack which accompanied people when admitted to hospital, and monitoring charts for food, fluid intake, weights and pressure relief. We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make sure people’s rights were protected.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included four staff recruitment files, training records, the staff rota, minutes of meetings with staff and people who used the service, quality assurance audits, complaints management and maintenance of equipment records. We completed a tour of the environment.

Updated 29 November 2018

Cottingham Hall is situated in the north of Hull and is close to local amenities. The home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 30 older people, including those who may be living with dementia. Most of the bedrooms are for single occupancy and are located over two floors. There are two communal sitting rooms with dining space at one end. There is a large garden to the rear of the property and parking at the front.

At our last inspection, we rated the service 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. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

This service was selected to be part of our national review, looking at the quality of oral health care support for people living in care homes. The inspection team included a dental inspector who looked in detail at how well the service supported people with their oral health. This includes support with oral hygiene and access to dentists. We will publish our national report of our findings and recommendations in 2019.

.

The service had 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 told us they felt safe and staff knew how to keep them safe from harm and abuse. Staff completed safeguarding training and could describe the action they would take if they had concerns. Staff completed assessments to help minimise the risks people had. There was sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs and they were recruited in a safe way. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met. Staff ensured people had access, in a timely way, to a range of health care professionals for advice and treatment when required. 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. Staff received training, support and supervision to enable them to feel skilled and confident when supporting people. The environment had been adjusted to take account of people’s differing needs. This included prominent signage and colour-contrasting equipment to increase visibility for people living with dementia.

People told us staff had a kind and caring approach. We observed this throughout the inspection and it was confirmed in discussions with relatives and professional visitors to the service. Staff provided people with explanations and information in accessible formats such as pictorial signs and symbols. The cook was in the process of taking photographs of all the meals they prepared so these could be used instead of a written menu board. Staff maintained confidentiality and personal information was held securely.

People had assessments of their needs and these were used to develop plans of care to guide staff in how to meet them. People told us staff were responsive to their needs and listened to them if they had concerns or complaints. People could remain at the service for end of life care. Staff involved health professionals and relatives to ensure people’s needs were met. There were activities for people to participate in.

The service was well-led. There was a quality monitoring system that consisted of audits, questionnaires and meetings to ensure people could express their views. The registered manager acted to address any identified shortfalls. Staff told us the registered manager and senior management were approachable and accessible; they said they were supported in their role. The registered manager had developed good working relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care and welfare.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.