Torpoint Nursing Centre

Updated 18 December 2018

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.

The inspection took place on 19 and 20 November 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector, a specialist advisor (SPA) for older people's nursing care, 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.

Before the inspection we contacted Healthwatch Cornwall, a GP practice, the local authority, clinical commissioning group (CCG), and mental health professionals for their feedback about the service. Where this was given, it can be found throughout the report.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed records held about the service. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR) which 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 also reviewed previous inspection reports and notifications. Notifications are specific events registered people have to tell us about by law. In addition, we reviewed information that had been shared with us, such as complaints, and compliments.

During the inspection we spoke with six people and eight relatives. In addition, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also spoke with a number of staff. This was made up of the cook, care staff, nursing staff, the new manager, the registered manager/provider and the Nominated Individual. A Nominated Individual a person that the provider nominates to act as the main point of contact with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A Nominated Individual has overall responsibility for supervising the management of the regulated activity, and ensuring the quality of the services provided.

We reviewed seven people's care plans, and medicine administration records (MARs). Other records we reviewed included the records held within the service to show how the registered manager and provider reviewed the quality of the service. This included a range of audits, questionnaires to people who live at the service, minutes of meetings and policies and procedures.

Updated 18 December 2018

The inspection took place on 19 and 20 November 2018 and was unannounced.

Torpoint Nursing Centre 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.

CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. The service provides care and accommodation for up to 54 people. On the days of the inspection 37 people were staying at the service. Some people were living with dementia, or had physical and mental health needs.

The service is owned and operated by Torcare Limited. They also own two other care homes in East Cornwall, providing residential and nursing care to older people, as well as a domiciliary care agency.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

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 told us they felt safe living at the service. The provider’s systems and processes protected people from abuse. Risks associated with people’s care were managed safely. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.

People’s medicines were managed safely. People were protected by infection control practices, and lessons were learnt when things went wrong, and the learning was used to help improve the service.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service to help ensure they were cared and supported effectively and safely. Staff received training to be able to meet people’s needs.

People received enough to eat and drink. However, people living dementia did not always receive a dining experience which promoted their independence and ensured they were treated with respect and dignity. However, the provider had already recognised that improvements were needed, and had started to take action.

The service worked well with external organisations to the benefit of people. External professionals were complimentary of the staff, care and leadership of the service.

People were encouraged to live healthy lives, and their overall wellbeing was promoted. The design and decoration of the service was suitable, and the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) was known and had been considered. The AIS aims to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss get information that they can access and understand. People’s individual communication needs were known by staff, and the provider had researched and used assistive technology to help support people’s communication 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.

People and their families told us staff were kind, and we observed compassionate interactions between staff and people. People were involved in their care, as far as possible and, overall their privacy, dignity and independence was promoted. People were supported compassionately at the end of their life.

People received personalised care. Staff knew people well and how to meet their individual needs. People told us they knew who to complain to and would feel confident in doing so.

People who used the service and staff, were involved in the ongoing development of it. There was a positive, empowering and inclusive culture and there were systems and processes in place to help monitor the safety and quality of the service. The management team displayed openness and transparency.

We recommend the provider uses dementia research to help improve the quality of the dining experience across the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.