Archived: Shirelodge Nursing Home

At this inspection we found the service remained Good, although the systems used to assess and improve the quality of care provided to people required strengthening. The shortfalls highlighted as part of the provider’s quality assurances processes were not always addressed in a timely manner.

People continued to receive safe care. People could be assured that they would be protected from the risk of harm and that they would receive their prescribed medicines safely. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to provide care and support to people to meet their needs.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision and on-going professional development and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People received support from staff that were caring and treated them with respect, kindness and courtesy. People living at Shirelodge had developed positive relationships with the staff providing their care and support.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences. People knew how to complain and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

The registered manager was a visible role model in the home. People, their relatives and other professionals told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide consistently high quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home.

We spoke with two visitors, four people that used the service and seven staff. People told us that they liked living at the home. A visitor told us, "My relative really enjoys living here. They are supported well by the staff and have their need seen to.' A person told us, 'The staff here are nice and look after me well.'

Throughout the inspection we found that care staff communicated and mixed well with people that used the service.

The provider recognised the importance of training and supervision. Supervision in the workplace allows staff to reflect on the way they delivered care, and can be useful in their professional development and help to ensure better and improved care delivery. We however found that not all staff have had supervision at the scheduled intervals. The provider after our inspection told us that they had taken steps to complete all outstanding supervisions.

We spoke with five people who used the service. They all told us that they were happy and had no concerns with the care they received. One person told us,'It's very comfortable, the place is clean and the food is alright too."

We spoke with four visitors. One person told us,'This is the right place for my relative. The staff know how to look after them and keep them comfortable.'Another person said,'The staff are brilliant and my relative is very settled and happy here.'

The provider had introduced a programme of regular maintenance of buildings and facilities. We found the home clean throughout. Carpets and flooring had been replaced in some areas and a ground floor bathroom had been fully refurbished.

We found that the provider had increased the availability of registered nurses and employed additional staff to provide activities which ensured people that used the service were supported and received appropriate care.

The provider had improved arrangements to support the staff that worked at the home to enable them deliver care in a safe manner.

Staff we spoke with told us that they did not feel supported by the management. Although the provider told us that they had made improvements to staff training and supervision we found that these improvements had not filtered through to front line staff.

We found that the provider needed to make improvements to the way they provided registered nurses to meet the nursing care needs of the residents, provided activities to engage the residents to pass the time, and to the way they maintained the premises where residents lived.

At the time of our visit we found that the provider was caring for 52 people. We have told the registered manager that a condition of their registration with the CQC is that they cared for no more than 50 people. We have asked the provider to work within this condition.

In this report the name of the registered manager Mrs. Sharon Goodall appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.