Archived: Regency Care Centre

Updated 17 August 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 site visit took place on 14 and 21 June 2018 and was unannounced on the first day of the inspection.

The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience on the first day. 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 had a background dealing with older people. One adult social care inspector returned to the home on the second day.

Prior to the inspection the service completed a Provider Information Return (PIR), which 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. This provided us with information and numerical data about the operation of the service.

We also looked at any information we held about the service. This included any notifications that had been received by us. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law. We also spoke to the local authority and clinical commissioning group about the service. They raised no concerns with us.

During the inspection we spoke with nineteen people who used the service including three people who needed support to express their views due to their communication needs and five visitors. We also spoke with the manager, the regional manager, a nurse, three care staff, including night care workers, the activities organiser, the chef, the senior housekeeper and the maintenance person. professional.

We carried out observations in the public areas of the service and looked at the care records for four people and medication records for people who used the service. In addition, we looked at a range of records relating to how the service was managed; these included two staff personnel files, training records, quality assurance systems and policies and procedures.

Updated 17 August 2018

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 14 and 21 June 2018.

Regency Care Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Regency Care Centre is registered to accommodate up to 60 people. There were three separate units, each of which have separate adapted facilities. One of the units specialises in providing care to people living with dementia.

The service was last inspected in April 2016 when we found it was meeting all but one of the required regulations. Although the service was rated as good overall, it was rated as requires improvement in safe, as we identified a breach of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was in relation to the staffing levels at the home. We found at this inspection improvements had been made to staffing levels at the home.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring 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.

There was no registered manager in place at Regency Care Centre. However, we were aware that the manager had applied to register with us and a fit person’s interview had been arranged. We were made aware that following the inspection the manager had been successful in registering with us.

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. The manager was present during the inspection.

The service had sufficient staffing levels in place to provide support people required. We saw staff members could undertake tasks supporting people without feeling rushed. People who lived at the home told us staff were responsive to their needs.

We found the service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

We found staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

We looked around the building and found it had been maintained, was clean and hygienic and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.

Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storing in place.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed training had been provided to enable them to support people who lived at the home. We found staff were knowledgeable about support needs of people in their care.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible. The manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

People gave us mixed responses to the variety and choice of meals available to them. The manager was working to improve this. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

People had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met.

People who lived at the home told us they were happy with their care and liked the staff who looked after them.

We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. We saw they were kind and patient and showed affection towards the people in their care.

We saw staff assisting people with mobility problems. They were kind and patient and assisted people safely.

Staff knew people they supported and provided a personalised service.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received.

People who lived at the home and their visitors told us they enjoyed a variety of activities which were organised for their entertainment.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home and their relatives. We saw the manager had listened and responded to issues of concern raised by one person who lived at the home. The concerns were being investigated when we undertook our inspection visit.

The manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the service and staff and resident meetings to seek the views of people about the service.