Archived: Thackley Green Specialist Care Centre

The Centre is located in a residential area of Corby and is registered to provide accommodation for up to 51 older people who require nursing care and rehabilitation. People staying at the Centre had a range of specialist needs including those living with dementia and some who had physical and sensory disabilities. The service provides respite care and rehabilitation for those people who may be recovering from surgery or illness. There are two floors, the first floor was for people with nursing needs and the ground floor was for people living with dementia and those who required social rehabilitation. At the time of our inspection there were 25 people staying there.

At the last inspection in May 2016, the service was rated 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. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection

People’s individuality was respected and people continued to be treated with empathy and kindness. The staff were friendly, caring and compassionate. Positive therapeutic relationships had been developed between the people and staff.

Detailed personalised care plans were in place, which enabled staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences, choices and needs. People were enabled and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective and positive outcomes for people were being achieved. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. Development of staff knowledge and skills was encouraged. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition and reach their full potential.

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 Centre supported this practice. Activities were geared around individual plans and people had opportunities to join in group activities if they wished to. Family and friends were welcomed and supported.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The provider was committed to develop the service and actively looked at ways to continuously improve the service. There were effective quality assurance systems and audits in place; action was taken to address any shortfalls.

People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 51 older people who require nursing care and rehabilitation. People staying at the specialist care centre have a range of needs including those living with dementia and some who had physical and sensory disabilities. The service provides respite care and rehabilitation for those people who may be recovering from surgery or illness. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people staying there.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

There were appropriate recruitment processes in place and people felt safe in the Centre. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and knew how to respond if they had any concerns.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people staying at the Centre; staffing levels were kept under review.

Staff were supported through regular supervisions and undertook training which helped them to understand the needs of the people they were supporting. People were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided. Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day to day routines. People’s health care and nutritional needs were carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

People received care from staff that were kind, compassionate and respectful. Their needs were assessed prior to coming to the Centre and care plans were in place and were kept under review.

People were cared for by staff who were respectful of their dignity and who demonstrated an understanding of each person’s needs. This was evident in the way staff spoke to people and the activities they engaged in with individuals. Relatives spoke positively about the care their relative received and felt that they could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had.

There were a variety of audits in place and action was taken to address any shortfalls. Management was visible and open to feedback, actively looking at ways to improve the service.

During our visit 24 October 2013 we found improvements. We saw that assessments and care plans contained the relevant information that staff needed to care for people and provide them with appropriate assistance. We saw that there were clear details of the aims of people's stay and how the staff should help them to achieve these aims.

We spoke with four staff who all had a good knowledge of people's needs.

We spoke with three people who used the service and one relative. All spoke highly of the care received. One person told us 'Staff are very helpful, very obliging and conscientious' and went on to explain how staff encouraged independence in preparation for returning home. A relative described the service as 'marvellous'.

Although people told us that they were happy with their care we found that assessments and care plans did not always reflect people's individual needs. This meant staff did not always have the information they needed to give people appropriate care.

Records showed that there had been occasions where staff had physically intervened in situations where someone staying at the service had become distressed. Staff and the manager confirmed that the staff had not had training or guidance on physical intervention. This meant that there was a risk of physical intervention being used inappropriately or in an unsafe way.

During our 09 October 2012 visit we found that accurate and appropriate care records were not always maintained. When we visited 06 June 2013 we found that care records did not reflect people's needs and the care and treatment they required from staff.

We saw that the service had systems in place to monitor care records; the cleanliness of the home; complaints; accidents and incidents; risk assessments and health and safety. We saw that although audits had identified some of the issues we found with care records, quality assurance systems had not led to the necessary improvements being made. The recent care plan audits seen did not identify that people's care plans did not include relevant information from their multi-disciplinary assessments and goals.