Archived: Netherclay House

Updated 4 March 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.

Netherclay House provides care and accommodation for up to 42 people. At the time we visited, 35 people lived at the home; four of whom were on a respite stay. The inspection took place on 8 December 2017 and 3 January 2018. The first day was unannounced and carried out by two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of caring for someone who is living with dementia. We announced the second day of our visit because of the time period between the two days. On the second day only one adult social care inspector visited.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) and previous inspection reports. The PIR 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 the information we held about the service and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We met people who lived at the service and received feedback from seven people who were able to tell us about their experiences. Some people using the service were unable to comment on their experience of life at the home. We spent time in communal areas observing staff interactions with people and the care and support delivered to them. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) in the unit. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people living with dementia. We spoke with three visitors and ten staff to ask their views about the service, plus a visiting health professional. We also reviewed the service’s own quality assurance system.

We reviewed information about people’s care and how the service was managed. These included three people’s care records along with other records relating to the management of the service. This included three staff files, staff training records and a selection of policies, procedures and records relating to the management of the service. We also looked at people’s medicine records and the systems in place for managing medicines, and we checked how they were administered to people.

Updated 4 March 2018

Netherclay House is a residential care home for 42 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There are 35 bedrooms, as well as five apartments in the grounds.

At our last inspection on 13 and 17 August 2015, we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found evidence continued to support the rating of good in four key questions. From our ongoing monitoring of the service there was no evidence 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.

Since our last inspection, the registered manager had left. Another manager was appointed but they did not apply to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). They then chose to work in another service. This means the service has been without a registered manager for 18 months. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. A new manager has been in post since 23 October 2017, the management team said the aim was for the manager to apply to register with CQC in early 2018. We will be writing separately to the registered provider about this matter.

People visiting, living and working at the home gave us positive feedback about the management team. People said they could speak with staff if they had a concern and were confident actions would be taken, if required. There was a strong commitment to staff training, which included recognising and reporting abuse, and increasing the staff team’s knowledge and skills. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Recruitment practices ensured people were supported by appropriate staff. Medicines were well managed.

The staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA). Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments were completed and best interest decisions made in line with the MCA. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. DoLS provide legal protection for those vulnerable people who are, or may become, deprived of their liberty. Staff supported people to be involved in making decisions and planning their own care on a day to day basis.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People were positive about the food at the service. People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities. The provider employed a designated activities coordinator. They ensured each person at the service had the opportunity to take part in activities and social events which were of an interest to them. People said staff treated them with dignity and respect in a caring and compassionate way.

Care plans reflected people’s needs and gave staff clear guidance about how to support them safely. Care plans were individualised. People were referred promptly to health care services when required and received on-going healthcare support.

The premises were well managed to keep people safe. There were emergency plans in place to protect people in the event of a fire. There was a quality monitoring system at the service. People’s views were sought through meetings, reviews and questionnaires to continuously improve the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.