Archived: Castleview Care Home

Updated 6 July 2016

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.

The inspection was carried out by two inspectors. We visited the service on 9 February 2016. The inspection was unannounced. This meant that the provider and staff did not know that we would be visiting.

We spoke with eight people who were living at the home. We also spoke with four relatives on the day of the inspection. We contacted three relatives by telephone following our visit to obtain their views of the service.

We spoke with the registered manager, the clinical lead, a nurse, five care workers and a chef. We examined four care plans and staff recruitment and training files. In addition, we checked records relating to the management of the service such as audits and surveys.

We consulted with a Northumberland local authority safeguarding officer and a local authority contracts officer. We also spoke with a reviewing officer and community matron for nursing homes from the local NHS Trust. We used their comments to support this inspection.

We checked information which we had received about the service prior to our inspection. This included notifications which the provider had sent us relating to deaths, safeguarding incidents and DoLS authorisations.

We did not request a provider information return (PIR) due to the late scheduling of the inspection. A PIR is a form which asks the provider to give some key information about their service; how it is addressing the five questions and what improvements they plan to make.

Updated 6 July 2016

The inspection took place on 9 February 2016 and was unannounced. This meant that the provider and staff did not know that we would be visiting.

We last inspected the service in November 2014 where we found that they were meeting all the regulations we inspected.

Castleview Care Home provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 45 people, some of whom are living with dementia. The home consisted of three units. People who required support with personal care lived on the ground floor. There were also two flats located in this unit for people who wanted to live semi-independently within the care home environment.

The first floor was divided into two units. People who had nursing needs lived in one unit and those who were living with dementia lived in the other unit. There were 43 people living at the home at the time of our inspection. There were 11 people in the dementia care unit, 12 in the general nursing unit and 20 in the residential unit.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People, relatives, staff and health care professionals were extremely complimentary about the management of the service describing the leadership as “outstanding,” “excellent” and “fantastic.” The manager led by example and was “hands on” with all aspects of the service.

People and relatives informed us that they were involved in the running of the home. Surveys, meetings and newsletters were completed. They explained that action was taken if any issues were raised. We spoke with one relative who said, “It was unbelievable, I made a comment about the carpets in the survey and then the next week they were fitting new flooring.”

The home had signed up to be involved in the Enabling Research in Care Homes [ENRICH] project. National and best practice guidelines in relation to people’s care and treatment were followed. Staff ensured that people who were nursed in bed were correctly positioned to reduce the risk of pneumonia. In addition, the manager and staff worked with other local providers to offer support and guidance in areas such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were motivated and demonstrated a clear commitment to providing dignified and compassionate care. They told us that they enjoyed working at the home and morale was excellent. They told us they had specific lead roles at the home. These included tissue viability, infection control, medicines, dignity, dementia and nutrition leads. The manager told us, “Staff are more motivated and passionate in their job role if they have something they are enthusiastic about and that in turn improves the quality of care.”

An activities programme was in place to help meet people’s social needs. The service had strong links with the local community. The home had started a Sunday lunch initiative for older people from the local community. In addition, people from the home attended a charitable group based at Alnwick Gardens.

Care records were individualised and documented people’s likes and dislikes so staff could provide personalised care and support. One page profiles had been completed for people and staff and a key worker system was in place. The manager said, “We try and match up people with staff by using the one page profiles and what is important to people.” This meant that people were supported by staff who had similar interests. These common interests helped foster a rapport between people and staff and promote person centred care.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to complain. Feedback systems were in place to obtain people’s views. Following our inspection we received a complaint about a person’s care and treatment. This is being investigated and we will monitor the outcome of the complaint.

Effective systems were in place to monitor all aspects of the service. There was an emphasis on continually striving to improve. The service worked in partnership with external organisations and other providers to make sure they were following current practice and providing a high quality service.

People told us that they felt safe. There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they would take if abuse was suspected. There were no ongoing safeguarding concerns. This was confirmed by the local authority’s safeguarding adults team.

The premises were clean and well maintained. There were no offensive odours in any of the areas we checked. The décor and layout met the needs of those with a dementia related condition.

People, relatives and staff told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. On the day of the inspection, we saw that people’s needs were met by the number of staff on the day of the inspection. There was a training programme in place. Staff were trained in safe working practices and to meet the specific needs of people who lived at the service.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’ it also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals.” The manager had submitted DoLS applications to the local authority to authorise in line with legal requirements.

People were supported to receive a suitable nutritious diet. We looked in the kitchen and food storage areas and observed that there was a wide variety of fresh fruit and vegetables.

People and others with whom we spoke were complimentary about the service and staff. One relative said, “I would say that mum’s care is second to none here. I’d recommend it to anyone.” We observed that people were cared for by staff with kindness and patience.