Overton House - Care Home

Updated 1 March 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 3rd February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 1 March 2022

Overton House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 40 older people, including people who are living with dementia. The home is situated in Cottingham, in the East Riding of Yorkshire and close to the city of Kingston upon Hull. All accommodation is on the ground floor and there are enclosed courtyards where people can access the outdoors. At the time of our inspection 36 people were using the service.

At a previous inspection in September 2015 and we rated the service good overall but found one breach of legal requirements in respect of the need for people to consent to their care. We therefore inspected the service again in November 2016 to check that improvements had been made in this area, and to re-assess the rating for the key question: ‘Is the service effective?’ We found improvements had been made and the rating for this key question was upgraded to good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good overall and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. However, one key question: ‘Is the service well-led?’ has been down-graded to the rating of requires improvement, due to some record keeping and quality assurance issues we identified. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and were aware of action they should take if abuse was suspected.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. The premises were clean and well maintained to keep people safe.

Risks to people were assessed and action taken to mitigate them. However, we found examples where information about risk and about contact with healthcare professionals was not always clearly recorded.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were followed and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Staff received the support and training they needed to give them the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.

People were supported with their nutritional and healthcare needs and had access to healthcare professionals 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 treated people with dignity and respect; they knew people well and could anticipate their needs. We observed positive, caring interactions between staff and people who used the service. The environment was stimulating and people were able to access a range of activities and entertainment.

The provider had a system in place for responding to people's concerns and complaints. People, relatives and visiting professionals were asked for their views in meetings and surveys.

Care plans were in place to give staff the information they needed to support people in line with their preferences and assessed needs. However, we found variation in the quality and amount of information in some files. Quality assurance systems in place had not been effective in identifying and addressing this. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.