Archived: Carseld

Updated 10 January 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.

The inspection was undertaken on 17 and 22 November 2017, by one adult social care inspector.

The provider did not meet the minimum requirement of completing the Provider Information Return at least once annually. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we made the judgements in this report. Failure to submit the PIR by the date requested means that the quality rating for ‘well-led’ cannot be rated higher that ‘requires improvement’.

We looked at the notifications we had received and reviewed all the intelligence we held about the service to help us assess the level of risk present. We also asked the local authority for their views before our inspection. We reviewed this information to help us make a judgement about the service.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who used the service, one relative and a visiting health care professional. We spoke with the registered manager and with four staff including the cook. We also observed the interactions that took place between people and staff whilst we were in the communal areas of the service.

We looked at a selection of documentation regarding the management and running of the service. This included three people's care records and medicine administration records (MAR), three staff files, supervision and appraisal records, staff training records and rotas, minutes of meetings with people who lived at the service, relatives and staff, quality assurance documents and audits, policies and procedures and maintenance records. We undertook a tour of the home and inspected maintenance records, complaints and compliments.

During the inspection we observed how staff interacted with people who used the service. 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.

Updated 10 January 2018

Carseld Residential Home 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.

Carseld Residential Home is located on the outskirts of Broughton, close to Brigg. The service has benefitted from a refurbishment and can provide accommodation for up to 22 people. There are 18 single and two double bedrooms on the ground and first floor, some with en-suite, wet rooms or toilets. One bedroom is self-contained with a fully equipped wet room and kitchen area, enabling people to keep their independence following an illness or hospital stay. Communal areas are on the ground floor and includes two lounges, an orangery and dining room. The service has garden or countryside views. There is a small car park for visitors to use.

This was the first inspection of this service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The inspection was undertaken on 17 and 22 November 2017.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Staff protected people from harm and abuse and understood how to report concerns to the management team, local authority and CQC. This helped to protect people.

Staffing levels were monitored to make sure there were enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff undertook training in a variety of subjects to maintain and develop their skills. Supervision and appraisals were provided for staff to help identify any further training needs and allow discussion about their performance.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust. There were adequate infection prevention and control measures in place and general maintenance was undertaken. Accidents and incidents were monitored and emergency plans were in place to help to protect people’s health and safety. Medicines were managed effectively. People received their prescribed medicine in a timely way and by staff who had undertaken training in how to administer medicines safely.

People’s preferences for their care sand support was recorded and they were treated with dignity and respect. Care records were personalised and people’s communication needs were recorded and understood by the staff. Risks to people’s wellbeing were monitored and staff encouraged people to maintain their independence, where possible. Health care professionals were contacted for help and advice to help to maintain or protect people’s wellbeing.

We looked at how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was used to ensure if people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, and if care and support was provided in their best interests. We found best interest meetings were undertaken with family and health care professionals to make important decisions on people’s behalf. This helped to protect people’s rights. People were treated with kindness and their diversity was respected.

Staff encouraged people to choose what they would like to eat and drink and their nutritional needs were met.

There was a confidentiality policy in place for staff to follow. Care records were stored securely in line with data protection legislation. A complaints policy was provided to people and issues raised were dealt with. Information was provided about advocacy services so people could gain help to raise their views, if they wished.

Visiting was permitted at any time and people were encouraged and supported to maintain their family and community contact. A programme of activities was available for people to attend, if they wished.

The registered manager was open and transparent. Quality assurance checks and audits were taking place to help to maintain or improve the service provided.