Cherry Hinton Nursing Home

Updated 23 February 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe, and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 9 February 2021 and was unannounced.

Updated 23 February 2021

Cherry Hinton Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation, nursing, and personal care, for up to 59 people. At the time of our inspection there were 42 older people and people living with dementia at the service. There are a number of communal areas, including a hairdressing salon, lounges and dining areas, a conservatory and a secure garden for people and their visitors to use. The home is situated over three floors, with the ground floor and first floor providing accommodation. There are bedrooms on both floors which can be accessed by either the stairs or a lift. There were communal toileting and wash facilities for people who used the service.

This unannounced inspection was carried out on 18 September 2017. At the last comprehensive inspection on 28 October 2016, the service was rated as ‘requires improvement.’ This was because we found a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated Activities) Regulations 2014; Safe care and treatment. This meant that we could not be assured that people would be given their medication safely.

We carried out a focussed inspection on 7 December 2016 due to further concerns raised with the Care Quality Commission. We found that the service had made improvements around the safe management of medicines but was now in breach of the following regulations:

• Regulation 18 Registration Regulations 2009; Notifications of other incidents.

• Regulation 12 HSCA RA Regulations 2014; Safe care and treatment.

• Regulation 13 HSCA RA Regulations 2014; Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment.

• Regulation 17 HSCA RA Regulations 2014; Good governance.

We undertook another focused inspection on 7 April 2017 to check that the provider had followed their plan. During this inspection we were able to confirm that they now met legal requirements.

At this comprehensive inspection carried out on 18 September 2017, we found that the service had continued to make the necessary improvements.

There was no registered manager at the time of this inspection. However, provision had been made as there was an interim manager in post and deputy manager to oversee the day-to-day running of the service. This was until the new manager commenced their employment. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

Staff encouraged people to make their own choices. Staff assisted people in a way that promoted their safety and in the main; people were looked after by staff in a kind and caring manner. Staff were knowledgeable of how to report incidents of harm and poor care. Additional safeguarding training for all staff had been put in place as a result of a recent alleged incident.

People’s privacy and dignity was promoted and maintained by staff. Staff were trained to provide effective and safe care. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and safely.

People and their relatives or advocates were involved in the setting up and agreement of their or their family member’s care plans. People’s care records took account of people’s wishes and any assistance they required. Risks to people who lived at the service were identified and adequate plans were put into place by staff to minimise and monitor these risks. However, these plans were not always a detailed record.

People were looked after by enough, suitably qualified staff to support them safely with their individual needs. Where there was a shortfall in staffing numbers, agency staff were used. here was a documented process to determine safe staffing levels in conjunction with people’s assessed dependency needs.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and fluids. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being needs and acted upon issues identified. Staff supported people to access a range of external health care services where needed and people’s individual health needs were met.

Activities took place at the service; however, some people felt that the number and type of activities taking place could be increased or improved to enhance social interactions. People were encouraged to maintain their links with the local community to promote their social inclusion.

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.

Staff enjoyed their work and were supported by the interim and deputy managers. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported to maintain their skills by way of supervision and appraisal. Pre-employment checks were completed on new staff members before they were deemed to be suitable to look after people living at the service.

The service was responsive and flexible to people’s needs. People maintained contact with their relatives and friends and they were encouraged to visit the service and were made welcome by staff.

There was a formal process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints could be listened to and acted upon. However, concerns documented in people’s communication books were not always acted upon by staff. Wherever possible, formal complaints were resolved to the complainants’ satisfaction.

Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. People who lived at the service, their relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views and feedback about the quality of the care and support provided. Actions were taken as a result to drive forward any improvements required.