Rayners Residential Care Home

Updated 1 November 2017

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.

Our inspection took place on 29 September 2017 and was unannounced.

Our inspection was completed by one adult social care inspector, a specialist advisor, a medicines inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Our Expert by Experience was familiar with the care of older adults who live in care homes.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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.

We reviewed information we already held about the service. This included notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also looked at feedback we received from members of the public, local authorities, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and the fire inspectorate. We checked records held by Companies House, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

During our Inspection we spoke with two registered managers, the deputy director of care and seven care workers. We also spoke with the service’s HR, administration and compliance manager and chef. We spoke with a visiting podiatrist.

We spoke with 16 people who used the service and two relatives. We looked at six medicines administration records and six sets of records related to people’s individual care needs. This included care plans, risk assessments and daily monitoring notes. We also looked at six staff personnel files and records associated with the management of the service, including quality audits. We asked the registered managers to send further documents after the inspection and these were included as part of the evidence we used to compile our report.

We looked throughout the service and observed care practices and people’s interactions with staff during our inspection.

Updated 1 November 2017

Rayners Residential Care Home is a care home without nursing and provides care for adults, people with dementia and palliative care. The service, which first opened in June 1990, is family owned and operated and is purpose-built. There are two floors. The ground floor has some bedrooms, all of the communal spaces and ancillary areas like the kitchen, laundry and offices. The first floor has the remainder of the bedrooms. In accordance with the current registration, the care home can accommodate up to 45 people. At the time of our inspection 43 people lived at the service.

At our last inspection, the service was rated good.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Why the service is rated good:

People were protected from abuse and neglect. We found staff knew about risks to people and how to avoid potential harm. Risks related to people’s care were assessed, recorded and reviewed. The management of risks from the building were also satisfactorily managed. We found appropriate numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. We made a recommendation about staffing deployment. Medicines management was safe.

Staff training and support was good. Staff had the necessary knowledge, experience and skills to provide appropriate care for people who used the service. The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People’s nutrition and hydration was appropriate. People told us they liked the food. Appropriate access to community healthcare professionals was available. The building and grounds were very well-maintained.

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.

We consistently received complimentary feedback about service. People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People and relatives were able to participate in care planning and reviews and some decisions were made by staff in people’s best interests. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

Care plans were person-centred and reviewed regularly. There was a satisfactory complaints system in place which included how people and others to raise concerns. People and relatives told us they had no complaints, but knew the process for alerting staff to any issues.

The service had a good track record for the quality of care provided. We found staff worked within a positive workplace environment and were well-supported by the management team. Various checks on the quality of care were completed. The information from audits was used to continuously improve the safety and care of people at the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.