The inspection visit was carried out on 15 April 2015 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out in January 2014, and there were no concerns.
West View Integrated Care Centre provides both adult social care and health care on the same site. There is a residential care service with two units on the ground floor. Linden unit has 15 beds for older people requiring permanent or respite residential care; and Wittersham unit has 15 beds for older people living with dementia who require permanent or respite residential care. On the first floor there are two units which each have 15 beds, Benenden East, and Benenden West. These units provide rehabilitation for patients who need help to enable them to return to their own home after illness or injury. The residential care service on the ground floor is staffed by employees of Kent County Council (KCC), whilst the rehabilitation service on the first floor is staffed by employees of KCC, and NHS employees who are nurses and other health professionals.
The premises are a Private Finance Initiative (PFI), owned by Integrated Care Solution (East Kent Limited). Management of the premises, maintenance, laundry, domestic and catering services are sub-contracted to Shaw Healthcare.
The service is run by a registered manager, who was present on the day of the inspection visit. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The registered manager worked closely with the manager for Shaw Healthcare to ensure that the services provided were fully integrated and benefitted the people receiving care and support.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one and was aware of a recent Supreme Court Judgement which widened and clarified the definition of a deprivation of liberty. One application and authorisation had been made to the DoLS department for depriving people of their liberty for their own safety, and CQC had been notified about this.
Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults, and discussions with them confirmed that they understood the different types of abuse, and knew the action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse. Staff were aware of the service’s whistle-blowing policy, and were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager, or with outside agencies if they needed to do so.
The service had systems in place for on-going monitoring of the environment and facilities. This included maintenance checks, and health and safety checks. Emergency plans and personal emergency evacuation procedures (PEEPs) for people receiving support were in place. Fire evacuation procedures and the fire risk assessment were reviewed and updated yearly by both managers. Accidents and incidents were reported, and systems were in place for following these up for all people and staff using the building, so that there was a co-ordinated approach to identifying any patterns occurring, and if any risks could be lessened.
The registered manager kept staffing numbers under review for care staff and nursing staff; and the Shaw Healthcare manager reviewed the numbers of ancillary staff in discussion with the registered manager. There were sufficient numbers of staff to run the service efficiently, and people were confident that there were suitable numbers of all staff to provide them with the care and support they needed. They said they felt safe and secure in the home, and were never rushed by the staff. People and their relatives said that the home was “Always kept clean” and that the building was “Well maintained”. The service followed required infection control procedures.
There were robust staff recruitment procedures by the registered manager and Shaw Healthcare to check that staff had required checks completed, and were suitable for their job roles. Records of on-going staff training, supervision and appraisals confirmed that staff were working to appropriate standards and were supported by their line managers. All staff were encouraged to attend meetings, and to take their part in the development of the service.
Nursing and care staff ensured that medicines were stored and administered to people using safe practices. These included nursing staff on the first floor, and senior care staff on the ground floor. People told us they received their medicines on time.
People and their relatives said that they were fully engaged in discussing their care planning and formally consented to their care plans. This included discussing changes in people’s progress with rehabilitation; and any changes in people’s care or health needs who were receiving respite care. Staff showed an understanding of assessing people’s mental capacity, and when they could make decisions for themselves; and when they may need support in making more difficult decisions. Staff contacted people’s family members, health professionals and social care professionals for ‘best interest’ meetings when these were needed to support people with appropriate decision-making.
The food was well presented and a variety of dishes were provided at each meal to give people choice. All the people that we spoke to were happy with the quality of food they received and the choices given. The chefs were familiar with people’s different dietary needs and their likes and dislikes; and spoke to people to obtain their feedback about the food.
People’s health needs were assessed by nursing and care staff in the different units. Health professionals such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists and a geriatrician were involved in people’s on-going assessments to ensure that they had the maximum support possible to assist them with making progress with their health needs. Referrals were made to doctors as needed. The service contained suitable equipment to support people with their health needs, and this was serviced and maintained for safety.
Staff treated people with respect and dignity, and maintained their privacy. People were supported to sit in communal areas or to stay in their own rooms as they wished. They were able to get up and go to bed as they wished, and were encouraged to maintain their independence. This was especially noticeable on the first floor units, where people had agreed to take part in their rehabilitation and were committed to developing their mobility and dexterity, and their general health, to enable them to regain more daily living skills and increase their independence.
People’s life histories were documented in their care plans and staff were well informed about people’s previous lifestyles and the subjects that interested them. There was a programme of entertainment and activities throughout the day, which was especially helpful for people living with dementia who needed support with following their interests.
People said they would have no hesitation in raising any concerns with the staff, health professionals or the registered manager, and were confident that any concerns or complaints would be addressed. People were provided with a complaints leaflet when they were admitted to the home, and these leaflets were easily available in reception and communal areas.
People were invited to express their views every day about how they were feeling and how they felt their needs were being met. People who were admitted for short term respite care or rehabilitation were asked to complete a quality assurance questionnaire before leaving. Results from the quality assurance questionnaires were analysed and made available for people to read, and included any action taken in response to people’s comments. People receiving long term care were asked for their views on a regular basis. This included attending residents and relatives meetings. People spoke very positively about the service with remarks such as, “I am very impressed with everything, especially the staff and the environment. Both are excellent”.
Records were neatly and accurately maintained, and were up to date and correctly signed and dated. The registered manager and staff maintained a culture of continuous improvement, and several staff told us they were “Proud to work here”. Staff were informed of the ethos of the service in ensuring that people received the support they needed, and in working together for the on-going development of the service.