Background to this inspection
Updated
20 August 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 inspection took place on 21 July 2016 and was unannounced.
The inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector.
Before the inspection we checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.
Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR 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.
During the inspection we spent time with four people who were living at the home and one relative. We spoke to three staff members including the deputy manager.
We looked at the care records for three people living at the home, three staff personnel files and records relevant to the quality monitoring of the service. We looked around the home, including people’s bedrooms, the kitchen, bathrooms and the lounge areas.
Updated
20 August 2016
This inspection took place on 21 July 2016 and was unannounced.
Revitalise Ellerslie Court is a Victorian House that has been converted into a Care Home providing accommodation and personal care for up to fourteen adults with a physical disability.
The home provides accommodation over four floors with the use of a passenger lift. Communal areas are on the ground floor and consist of a dining room, two sitting rooms and a conservatory. There are a range of aids and adaptations to aid people with a range of physical disabilities.
Ellerslie Court has fourteen single rooms, two of which have en-suite facilities.
A registered manager was not in post, however, a new provider was in the process of purchasing Ellerslie Court, and they had recruited a manager who was in the process of registering.
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.
Some of the audits relating to the running of the home had not been completed in accordance with the provider’s schedule. Medication audits and care plan audits were being completed weekly, and we received assurances the auditing process would be addressed when the new provider took over the home.
Everyone we spoke with told us they liked living at the home and felt safe.
People received their medicines as prescribed and safe practices had been followed in the administration and recording of medicines.
People confirmed there were enough staff available to meet their needs, people were not rushed or pressured when being supported. Some of the staff had been in post for more than five years.
External safety checks by contractors were taking place.
We observed staff delivering support with kindness. They knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences and dislikes. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified.
People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed.
People told us there were enough suitably trained staff to meet their individual care needs. Staff were only appointed after a thorough recruitment process. Staff were available to support people to go on trips or visits within the local and wider community and attend medical appointments. People were also support to pursue hobbies and other personal interests.
The deputy manager and the staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated legislation and had taken appropriate steps to ensure people exercised choice were possible. Where people did not have capacity, this was documented appropriately and decisions were made in their best interest with the involvement of family members where appropriate and relevant health care professionals. This showed the provider understood and was adhering to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.This is legislation to protect and empower people who may not be able to make their own decisions.
The provider was meeting their requirements set out in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is part of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).
People’s bedrooms were individually decorated to their own tastes. People showed us their bedrooms and were proud of them.
Most people except one person told us they liked the food. We observed there was a choice of menu for people if they did not like what was prepared that day.
People who lived at the home, their relatives and other professionals had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care. Care records were detailed and gave staff the information they required so that they were aware of how to meet people’s needs.
There was a complaints procedure in place and people felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff, the deputy manager or the registered manager.
Most staff were trained and skilled in accordance with the provider’s requirements. The deputy manager told us some training had lapsed, however this was in the process of being addressed.
Staff said they benefited from regular one to one supervision and appraisal from their manager. Staff spoke highly about the deputy manager.
There was a safeguarding and a whistleblowing policy in place, which staff were familiar with