Background to this inspection
Updated
9 November 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 checked 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 inspection took place on 26 September 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of a lead inspector, a bank inspector, a pharmacist specialist professional advisor and an expert by experience with experience of services for older people. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. An inspection manager also attended the inspection to observe the lead inspector; an observation CQC carries out annually with all inspectors as part of its quality assurance processes.
Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included looking at information we had received about the service and statutory notifications we had received from the home. We also contacted the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.
We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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. The provider returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgements in this report.
We observed how care and support was provided to people. 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 spoke with 11 people who were using the service, five relatives, three care staff, the cook, the activity organiser, both deputy managers and the district manager.
We looked at six people’s care records, three staff files, medicine records and the training matrix as well as records relating to the management of the service. We looked round the building and saw people’s bedrooms and communal areas.
Updated
9 November 2018
This inspection took place on 26 September 2018 and was unannounced.
Savile Park is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home provides personal care for up to 55 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. Accommodation is provided on three floors with passenger lift access between floors. There are communal areas on each floor, including a lounge and dining room. There were 55 people in the home when we inspected.
The home has 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 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 on 3 October 2017 we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’. We identified two regulatory breaches (Regulations 11 and 17) which related to consent and good governance. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve all the key questions to at least good.
At this inspection we saw there had been improvements made in both areas and the service was compliant with all relevant health and social care regulations. The breaches we identified in October 2017 had been addressed and the rating for all key questions is now good.
Medicine management had improved which ensured people received their medicines when they needed them. People told us they felt safe in the home and praised the support they received from staff who they described as kind and caring. Staff knew how to recognise signs that people may be being abused and the procedures for reporting any concerns they had. Risks to people were well managed and care records guided staff in how to keep people safe. Accidents and incidents were monitored by the provider and lessons learned were shared with staff.
People told us the home was kept clean and we saw this was the case. Staff followed good infection control practices. Safety checks were in place to make sure the premises and equipment was properly maintained and safe.
Robust recruitment processes ensured staff were safe to work in the home. New staff completed a thorough induction process. Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles and this was kept up to date. There were enough staff to meet people's needs.
People received personalised care which was reflected in their care records which were reviewed regularly. Staff were kept informed of any changes in people’s needs through good communication such as detailed handovers at staff shift changes. People’s healthcare needs were met. People enjoyed the food and were provided with a choice of meals and drinks to meet their needs and preferences.
Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity. Staff promoted people’s independence encouraging them to do as much as they could themselves. People had opportunities to take part in a range of different activities in the home and out in the community.
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 relatives knew how to make a complaint and were confident it would be dealt with appropriately.
People, relatives and staff were unanimous in the praise about the management and leadership of the home. Effective quality audit systems were in place which helped the provider identify and address any issues in a timely way. Our discussions with the district manager and staff demonstrated the provider was committed to ongoing improvements and continually looking at ways in which they could improve the service for people coming in to Savile Park.