The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: St Aubyns Nursing Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

35 Priestlands Park Road, Sidcup, Kent, DA15 7HJ (020) 8300 4285

Provided and run by:
D Tanna and K Tanna

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

12 February 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 12 February 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection at the home, 01 October 2013, we found the provider needed to make improvements relating to the management of medicines, monitoring the quality of the service and records relating to people’s care needs. The provider sent us an action plan on the 7 November 2013. They told us they had amended the homes procedures for the management of medicines and there were new systems in place to auditing records and the quality of care and support people received. At this inspection we found that medicines were appropriately managed and people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals. There were appropriate arrangements in place for monitoring the quality of the service that people received and accurate records relating to people’s care and support needs were being maintained.

St Aubyns Nursing Home provides accommodation and care for up to 39 older people, some of whom have dementia. At the time of this inspection the home was providing care and support to 29 people. The home 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 using the service said they felt safe and that staff treated them well. Safeguarding adult’s procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. The manager demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to.

Risks to people using the service were assessed; care plans and risk assessments provided clear information and guidance for staff on how to support people with their needs. People and their relatives [where appropriate] had been involved in planning for their care needs. People were being supported to have a balanced diet. People received appropriate end of life care and support. When necessary additional support was provided to the home by a local hospice end of life care team.

There was a monthly residents and relatives forum where people were able to talk to the manager and provider about the home and things that were important to them. The provider took into account the views of people using the service and their relatives and staff through surveys. The results were analysed and action was taken to make improvements for people at the home. There was a range of appropriate activities available to people using the service to enjoy. People knew about the home’s complaints procedure and said they were confident their complaints would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

Staff said they enjoyed working at the home, they received plenty of training and good support from the manager. Unannounced spot checks were carried out by the manager to make sure people received good quality care at all times.

1 October 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service and their relatives we spoke with were happy living at the home and with the care they received. People told us 'I can't find fault with the care here'; 'the staff are all very nice'; and 'I love the home'. People told us they were given appropriate choices. For example, one person said 'I prefer to have a female carer and that always happens'. People were happy with the choices they were given, with the care they were provided with and with the food. People's relatives told us they were involved in their family members' assessments but some people didn't know they had a care plan or felt they were not involved when the care plan was completed.

We found the provider was working towards implementing a number of improvements at the home, but at the time of our inspection this work had not been completed in all areas. However, we found people were involved in their care and able to make decisions. People were treated with privacy, dignity and respect. We found people's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in a way that promoted their safety and welfare. People received their medication safely but there were some shortfalls in the way people's medicines were managed. Staff were supported and training was being implemented. Some quality assurance took place, but detailed audits of various aspects of the service had not been implemented.

3 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our inspection at St Aubyns Nursing Home on 03 January 2013 followed up on outstanding compliance actions from our visit on 25 July 2012. We checked to see if improvements had been made in relation to choices at mealtimes, safeguarding vulnerable adults training, and staffing levels. We found the necessary improvements had been implemented.

People who used the service told us that generally the quality and choice of food was fine, although one person said they would like more menu variety and fresh fruit. People told us they were supported to eat where this was required and they were able to choose whether to eat meals in their bedrooms or in the dining room. They told us they felt safe living at the home and they felt comfortable complaining or raising concerns if they needed to. People who had needed to complain in the past told us they were listened to and their issues were resolved.

We saw staff were able to quickly respond to any call bells which sounded and people we spoke with confirmed they never had to wait long when they needed help. Staff told us although they were busy, they often were able to find the time to speak with people and we saw staff interacted well with people. For example, staff communicated and provided reassurance when hoisting people and staff spoke to people while they waited for their lunch.

5 October 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with people who used the service and some people's relatives about their experiences of living in the home. In particular we asked how they were treated by staff and how involved people were in making choices and decisions about their care and with daily choices such as food or activities.

People who used the service told us about the choices they were encouraged to make. For example, one person told us they had chosen to have their meals in their room as they did not wish to use the communal areas of the home. People told us that staff were always polite to them. One person who was partially sighted told us staff communicated effectively when caring for them, for example by providing reassurance when hoisting them.

Three out of seven people we spoke with told us that staff sometimes woke them up in the mornings. We heard one person telling another they had been woken up to have a shower. People told us they did not always like this as they sometimes preferred to stay in bed. The manager told us sometimes people needed to be woken to be given their medication or to be provided with personal care. However, in general people told us they were happy living at the home and staff were attentive to their needs. One person who was placed at the home temporarily, told us they hoped they would be able to stay living at the home on a permanent basis.

25 July 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience, people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke to several people who used the service and some people's relatives about their experiences of living at the home. One persons relative told us their family member 'X is very, very happy here and so are we. She is well looked after and would not want her to be any where else'. In contrast, one person who used the service told us 'I am very lonely, the staff do not have time to talk to me but I don't complain because they do their best and are very busy'. Other people told us 'I am looked after' and 'the girls do their best'. One person said 'the staff at night are very good'.

People told us they knew how to complain. One person said 'I could complain if I wanted to', and another said 'I know how to complain'. One person told us they had complained and had received a satisfactory resolution.

The majority of people we spoke to told us they enjoyed the food provided to them at lunchtime. However, one person told us 'its always carrots and brussel sprouts. Since I have been here I have not seen a marrow, greens, swede or anything similar'. Another person told us 'I had 12 sprouts on my dinner which I thought was far too many'.