Tupwood Gate

Tupwood Gate is a nursing home that provides support to up to 35 people. They provide nursing care to older people, people with long term medical conditions and people living with dementia. Care is provided across multiple floors in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection, there were 27 people living at the home.

The inspection took place on 12 April 2018 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection we rated the service 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.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People’s care was delivered safely with personal risks assessed and managed. Staff responded appropriately to incidents or concerns and were knowledgeable about safeguarding processes. People’s medicines were managed and administered safely and people lived in a clean and safe home environment. There were sufficient numbers of staff at the home to meet people’s needs safely and checks had been undertaken on all staff to ensure they were suitable for their roles.

People liked the food they were served but information on choices was not always clear to them. We made a recommendation about information on meal options. Staff had the appropriate training for their roles and staff provided support that met people’s healthcare needs. 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. The building was adapted to make the home accessible to people.

Staff were caring and people’s feedback on them was positive. People received care that was dignified and people’s privacy was respected by staff. Staff found ways to encourage people’s independence and to involve them in their care.

Care was delivered in a person-centred way. People had access to a range of activities and further improvements were underway in this area. People’s care plans reflected what was important to them and had been regularly reviewed. End of life care was provided in a sensitive and person-centred way and the provider had received a number of compliments in this area. There was a clear complaints policy and complaints were documented and responded to appropriately.

People knew the registered manager and had regular meetings to involve them in the running of the home. Regular checks on care were carried out through a variety of audits and the provider took action where improvements had been identified. There were strong links with the local community that people benefitted from. Staff felt supported by management and there were robust communications systems in place for staff.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

People also told us that their room was cool enough in summer and warm enough at night. They said that their taps worked and the water was not too hot. They liked their rooms, the home and the gardens.

One person said 'What more could anyone want with the lovely home, lovely garden, nice staff and the food is wonderful'.

We saw that people who use the service could be confident that their human rights would be respected and taken into account because the provider had systems in place to gain and review consent from people who use services, and act in accordance with this.

We found where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted within legal requirements.

Our visit was unannounced and early in the morning and we found that the home was hygienic, clean and fresh.

We found that although the building was generally well maintained, in reasonable decorative condition and the garden was well maintained, the provider had not always taken steps to provide care in a home that was suitably designed and adequately maintained in all areas.

Although people were genarly cared for they were not always cared for by staff who were properly supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

People told us that that they were treated with respect, kindness and dignity. Individual preferences concerning food were met, reviewed and changed if necessary.

People had the freedom of choice over how and where to spend their day in the home and were actively involved in the planning of the care they received.

We saw that staff interacted well with the people who used the service. Staff interactions often resulted in positive outcomes for service users.

People told us that the staff "were excellent" and that they "would not want to live anywhere else". One service user told us that "the matron is simply excellent...she gets the job done in an efficient and professional manner and really does keep this place ticking over".