Background to this inspection
Updated
12 June 2015
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 took place on 16 April 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by an Adult Social Care (ASC) inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert-by-experience who supported this inspection had experience of care services for older people.
Before this inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered provider and information from health and social care
professionals. We did not ask the registered provider to submit a provider information return (PIR) prior to this inspection; this is a document that the registered provider can use to record information to evidence how they are meeting the regulations and the needs of people who live at the home.
Prior to the inspection we spoke with the local authority safeguarding adults and quality monitoring teams to enquire about any recent involvement they had with the home. We also approached a number of social care professionals to request feedback and one person responded. On the day of the inspection we spoke with four people who lived at the home and chatted to others. We also spoke with two visitors / relatives, three members of staff, a visiting health care professional and the registered manager. A few days after the inspection we spoke with another relative to gain their views about the service provided by the home.
We looked at bedrooms (with people’s permission) and communal areas of the home and also spent time looking at records. This included the care records for three people who lived at the home, the recruitment and training records for three members of staff and records relating to the management of the home, such as quality assurance and maintenance records.
Updated
12 June 2015
This inspection took place on 16 April 2015 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 23 April 2013 and found that the registered provider met the regulations that we assessed.
The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 44 older people, including people with a dementia related condition. The home is located in Molescroft which is close to Beverley, a town in the Riding of Yorkshire. It is on the outskirts of the town but close to transport links. There are three separate units: The House, The Annexe and The Haven. People are accommodated in single rooms and most have en-suite facilities.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since 24 February 2014. 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 told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff had completed training on safeguarding adults from abuse and were able to describe to us the action they would take if they had concerns about someone’s safety. They said that they were confident all staff would recognise and report any incidents or allegations of abuse.
We observed good interactions between people who lived at the home, staff and relatives on the day of the inspection. People told us that they felt staff really cared about them and that staff respected their privacy and dignity.
People were supported to make their own decisions and when they were unable to do so, meetings were held to ensure that decisions were made in the person’s best interests. If it was considered that people were being deprived of their liberty, the correct documentation was in place to confirm this had been authorised.
Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.
We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. Staff worked in one of the three units throughout their shift and this promoted consistency for people who lived in each unit.
New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. Staff received a thorough induction programme before they worked unsupervised.
The laundry room was not fit for purpose; it was cluttered and was not divided into ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ areas. The window frame was rotten and there were open pipes attached to the hot water boiler. It was not possible to ensure that the laundry room was maintained in a clean and hygienic condition.
This was a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
People who used the service and relatives told us that staff were effective and skilled. Staff told us that they were happy with the training provided for them, and that they could request additional training if they felt they needed it.
People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us that they were satisfied with the meals provided by the home. People were supported appropriately by staff to eat and drink safely and their special diets were catered for.
There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives, health and social care professionals and staff. People’s comments and complaints were responded to appropriately.
People who lived at the home, relatives and staff told us that the home was well managed. The quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas of concern or areas that were unsafe, and there were systems in place to ensure that lessons were learned from any issues identified.