Archived: Four Seasons Residential Care Home

Updated 9 December 2017

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.

This was an unannounced inspection and was conducted by one adult social care inspector and one expert by experience on the 07 November 2017 and completed by one adult social care inspector on the 08 November 2017. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service, specifically working with older people and people living with dementia.

We requested and received a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

Before our inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications the provider had made to us. Notifications tell us about any incidents or events that affect people who use the service. We contacted the local authority and Healthwatch Rochdale who did not have any concerns about the service.

We spoke with six people who used the service, three relatives, two visitors, a cook, the deputy manager, a senior care staff member in charge of care plans and notifications and three care staff members.

During our inspection we observed the support provided by staff in communal areas of the home. We looked at the plans of care for three people and medicines administration records for eight people who used the service. We also looked at the recruitment, training and supervision records for four members of staff, minutes of meetings and a variety of other records related to the management of the service.

Updated 9 December 2017

Four Seasons Residential Care Home is a large detached house located in Littleborough, Rochdale. Personal care and accommodation is available for 16 people. There are 16 single rooms, with 12 rooms having en-suite toilet facilities. There were 13 people accommodated at the home during the inspection.

At the last inspection of March 2017 the service was rated as requires improvement overall with well-led in inadequate. These were five breaches in the regulations. Regulation 9 HSCA RA Regulations 2014 Person centred care. Care plans were not developed to meet people's identified needs. Regulation 12 HSCA RA Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment Medicines were not managed safely. Regulation 17(3) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Failure to complete and return a PIR. Regulation 17 (2 (d) (ii) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2017 because fire drills were not recorded and Regulation 18 (4A) of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. Failure to notify the CQC of people subject to a DoLS and other required notifications. The service sent us an action plan to show us how they intended to improve the service. The service had improved and met the regulations at this inspection.

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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs.

The administration of medicines was safe and people received their medicines when they needed them. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow.

The home was clean, tidy and did not contain any offensive odours. The environment was maintained at a good level and homely in character.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities. This helped to protect the health and welfare of staff and people who used the service.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

People were encouraged to eat and drink to ensure they were hydrated and well fed.

Most staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The person in charge was aware of her responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People told us staff were kind and caring.

We saw that people were treated in a way that was suitable to their age, sex, gender and background.

We saw from our observations of staff and records that people who used the service were given choices in many aspects of their lives and helped to remain independent where possible.

We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed. Plans of care contained people’s personal preferences so they could be treated as individuals.

We saw visitors were welcomed into the home and people could see their visitors in private if they wished.

Some staff had been trained in end of life care which should enable them to provide support to people who used the service and their family at the end of their life.

Activities were provided which were suitable to the age and gender of people who used the service.

Audits, quality assurance surveys and meetings helped the service analyse performance to help improve the service.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to raise any concerns.

Staff and people who used the service said the home was well-led and the manager was approachable.