We carried out a review of the data available to us about Princes Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Princes Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Princes Court is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 75 people aged 65 and over,
some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 72 people were living at the service. The home also had a rehabilitation unit called Royal Quays where people were admitted from hospital to recover and regain their independence.
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the service. One relative said, “If you have someone who needs help, I would recommend this place 110%. It's a joy coming here, the staff are great.” Staff told us they had worked as a team throughout the pandemic to support people’s wellbeing and that of the staff. They explained that care at the home would be good enough for one of their relatives or friends.
Risk assessments were reviewed following a fall to help ensure timely action could be taken to help prevent any reoccurrence. The service was involved in an Assisted Living Technology pilot. The technology was non-invasive and helped support people’s independence, safety and wellbeing. It alerted staff to any concerns or risks to a person’s health such as the risk of falls.
The local Fire and Rescue Service had recently visited and identified several fire safety measures to be undertaken. The registered manager and estates manager confirmed that these had been completed with the exception of one action which was due to be carried out soon.
There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs. People and relatives said that there were enough staff to support people. One relative told us, “There's always staff around - they're handy and very willing to do anything.”
Medicines were managed safely. Medicines administration records demonstrated that medicines were given as prescribed.
The home was clean. One relative told us, “I would recommend it and it's clean there’s never been a smell.” We signposted the provider to additional resources including the recording of COVID-19 checks which were carried out prior to and on admission.
There was an emphasis on staff training and progression. Champions roles had been appointed in all aspects of people’s care such as palliative care, falls and dementia. One health professional told us, “We have a good working relationship with the manager and in my opinion it is well led. [Registered manager] often asks us to deliver training to her staff.”
People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People spoke positively about the meals. Comments included, “Sometimes you don't feel like a big meal, but they bring little snacks” and “We had a curry yesterday it was spicy and lovely.”
The registered manager sent us several case studies to show how being at the home, with the support of staff, had led to an improvement in people's health, independence and wellbeing.
The service were involved in research projects which helped demonstrate a commitment to promoting safe, effective practice and achieving good outcomes for people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 3 September 2020). We also carried out an unrated targeted inspection which looked at the IPC practices the provider had in place (published 24 February 2021).
Why we inspected
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
The inspection was carried out due to concerns received about one person’s care. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.
The information CQC received indicated concerns about the management of falls, the safety of the environment, staff training and the management of the service. This inspection examined those risks.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the safe, effective and well led key questions of this full report. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Princes Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
We found the following examples of good practice:
¿ All visitors had their temperature checked upon arrival at the service. Visitors were also asked to complete a brief questionnaire including questions about their current health status.
¿ Systems were in place to support people to maintain contact with their family. This included the use of electronic tablets and telephones. The service had also created a safe area where relatives could visit, whilst adhering to government guidelines..
¿ All visitors and staff had access to adequate amounts of appropriate PPE. Staff had received specific COVID-19 training, including the correct use of PPE. Staff had also received specific dementia training regarding how to approach and care for people whilst wearing their PPE.
¿ The registered manager told us both people and staff underwent regular COVID-19 testing in line with government guidelines.
¿ Adjustments had been made to the environment, for example the spacing of chairs and tables to support with social distancing. Staff were seen to adhere to social distancing guidance during the inspection.
¿ Robust cleaning protocols were in place for both daily and more in-depth cleaning. The registered manager carried out regular cleaning audits which allowed for any issues to be identified and rectified.
¿ The registered manager worked well with external professionals including the local authority commissioning team and infection control nurse.
Princes Court is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 75 older people, some of whom require nursing care. At the time of this inspection 73 people were using the service. 53 people lived there permanently, and 20 people were using the rehabilitation service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were protected from the risk of abuse. There were detailed risk assessments in place which identified and reduced risks to people. Accidents and incidents were investigated and acted upon. Any lessons learned were shared with staff.
The premises were safe. Good infection control procedures were in place.
Medicines were managed safely.
There were enough staff on duty to safely meet people’s needs. Staff recruitment was safe.
Staff were motivated by the manager to provide good quality, person-centred care. The provider’s strong quality assurance process was embedded throughout the service. Provider representatives carried out routine checks to monitor the safety and quality of the service. The provider supported the manager to make improvements and develop the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 14 February 2020) where we identified one breach of the regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
We undertook this focused inspection to check the provider had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Princes Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Princes Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Princes Court also had a rehabilitation unit which is ran in partnership with the NHS.
At the time of our inspection 52 people with physical and mental health related conditions permanently lived at the service. Additionally, 18 people were using the rehabilitation service on a temporary basis.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service failed to maintain accurate and complete records in respect of people’s care and support. Individual risks were not always identified, and some care plans had missing information or information had not been fully completed. Medicines were not managed safely, and we observed a medicine round and found the staff member did not follow best practice.
We have made a recommendation in the safe and well led section, about record keeping.
People were protected from abuse by staff who understood how to identify and report any concerns. Staffing levels enabled people’s needs to be met safely, and ensured people received consistent and reliable support. The registered manager sought to learn from any accidents and incidents involving people.
Staff were recruited safely and received appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their role effectively. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice. People were happy with the food provided and all dietary needs were catered for. People’s needs were assessed before coming to live at the home. People were happy with their rooms and had personalised them.
We have made a recommendation about the length of time the provider takes to fix things around the home once they have been reported.
Staff were caring and treated people with kindness and respect. Independence was encouraged, and care plans supported this.
People had person centred care plans which detailed their life history, likes, dislikes and how they preferred their day to be. People were confident to raise any concerns they had with staff. There were plenty of activities available. People were provided with information in a way they understood. End of life care plans were in place.
People and staff felt supported by the registered manager. Quality assurance systems were completed however the audits had not highlighted the concerns we raised.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 20 October 2017). There was also an inspection on 9 October 2018. However, the report following that inspection was withdrawn as there was an issue with some of the information that we gathered.
The provider completed an action plan after the October 2017 inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.
Why we inspected
This is a planned re-inspection because of the issue highlighted above
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. Please see the safe and well led sections of this full report.
Enforcement
We have identified a breach in relation to the safe management of medicines.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
After that inspection we received further concerns in relation to the safety and governance of the service. As a result of this, a multi-disciplinary team decision was made to place the service into North Tyneside Council’s ‘Organisational Safeguarding Process’. This meant that outside agencies such as North Tyneside’s safeguarding and contracts monitoring teams, the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) met regularly with the provider’s representatives to implement and monitor a comprehensive action plan in order to ensure people who used the service were safe.
In August 2017, after eight months of closely monitoring the service, a decision was made to remove the service from the organisational safeguarding process following the provider’s completion of an action plan and positive feedback from all agencies about the improvements to the service.
We undertook this focused inspection on 6 September 2017 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those topics. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Princes Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Princes Court is a residential care home situated in North Shields. It provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 75 people with a wide range of health related conditions. The service also has a newly established NHS led rehabilitation unit for patients who require intensive support after a hospital admission before they can return home. At the time of our inspection 38 people used the residential service at Princes Court and 14 used the rehabilitation service.
There was a new manager in post who had been employed by the provider at another care home and had recently transferred to Princes Court. They had applied to the CQC to become the registered manager at the service. 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.
At this inspection, we found the provider had made significant improvements throughout the service and were now complying with all of the regulations. There was a clear management structure in place and the governance of the service was robust. Additional audits and checks of the service had been implemented and policies and procedures had been updated or completely re-written. The most recent documentation demonstrated that the senior management team had thorough oversight of the service and that any issues identified were being addressed in a timely manner.
People’s care records contained up to date information including care plans. Risk assessments identified the specific risks people faced in their lives and information for staff on how to mitigate risks. Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Princes Court and their relatives echoed this.
Complaints records were up to date and formally recorded on the provider’s complaints monitoring documentation. The manager was in the process of responding to two families who had recently raised issues. Written acknowledgements of complaints and full explanations with corrective action and lessons learned were now fully recorded.
Staff training was up to date. The provider had sourced a new external training company to deliver relevant key topics to existing staff and a robust induction programme for new employees that gave them a solid introduction to the role and to the care industry. All staff had received a formal supervision with the new manager to discuss their role and to provide guidance and support as required in order for staff to understand the higher expectations. A new appraisal system was in place and the manager had a comprehensive plan of when these needed to be completed.
At our last inspection we made a recommendation that the provider ensure staff were trained and competent in ensuring people’s dignity and privacy needs were met and maintained. This was because we witnessed several undignified and disrespectful interactions between staff and people. At this inspection, all staff displayed kind and caring values and they acted friendly and professionally throughout the visit.
We have not changed the rating of the home at this inspection. This is because we want to be assured that the improvements made will be sustained over a longer period of time.
Princes Court is a residential care home situated in the Royal Quays area of North Shields. It provides accommodation, personal and nursing care for up to 75 adults with physical and mental health related conditions. At the time of our inspection 51 people lived at the home or were staying on a short term respite basis.
The person in charge of the day to day running of the service was known as the 'care manager'. They had been employed by the provider for several months. They were awaiting the outcome of their application and assessment by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the registered manager of the service. 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.
The governance of the service had not been thorough and effective. Internal audits and monitoring of the service had taken place however this had still not been robust enough to identify the issues we highlighted during our inspection. A new operations director had drafted a service improvement plan and reviewed it weekly. Following our inspection, the management team sent us an immediate action plan to address the shortfalls throughout the service.
We examined eight individual care records thoroughly and found that all of them contained inaccuracies or incomplete forms and some documentation held within the records were not always signed and dated. Improvements had been made with updating support plans to make them more detailed and person-centred. We saw ‘service user profiles’ were completed with personal information about life history, interests, hobbies and preferences.
Record keeping was poor in aspects of the service such as food and fluid monitoring, weight charts and positional change records which caused us concern and we asked the care manager to address this immediately. Individual risks which people faced in their daily lives were identified and control measures were in place to reduce the possibility of people coming to harm although these had not always been completed accurately or in a timely manner.
People who required nutrition and hydration support or were unable to swallow food and/or medicine due to the risk of choking where not always supported in the most effective way. Inadequate record keeping meant we were unable to ascertain if people’s needs in this area were met in the safest possible way.
During the inspection some relatives brought concerns to our attention which we immediately raised with the care manager. There had been three previous incidents of a safeguarding nature which had been investigated by the local authority safeguarding team since our last inspection. Two of which were upheld and one was still on-going. The provider was working with other external agencies such as the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to improve the service it provided.
The complaints policy and procedure in place was dated 2012 and the care manager told us this was the most up to date version they had. We reviewed the information kept in the complaints file and found that the care manager had not used the provider’s complaints form and complaints register in line with company policy. This meant some complaints were not thoroughly recorded, handled and tracked in the way the provider would expect them to be. Complaints which had been made to the service and directly to the provider in the past had not always been recorded and responded to appropriately and satisfactory outcomes had not been received by some complainants.
We looked at how the service managed medicines. We found a small number of medicines were out of stock which meant some people had not received the care they required. There was an up to date medicines policy in place; the service now used an electronic monitoring system for managing medicines throughout the home and we found no issues with storage, administration or disposal.
A robust induction programme such as the ‘care certificate’ had not been implemented at the service and because of this; four new staff had not had their competency assessed against the minimum standards which are expected. Formal ‘on-the-job’ competency checks of experienced staff were not conducted. Training which the provider deemed mandatory had not always been refreshed in line with the targets they had set themselves. Appraisals had not been carried out for some time. This meant the provider could not assure themselves that staff were competent in their role or that they were formally supported to develop their skills and knowledge. Staff continued to be recruited in line with safe working practice.
We noted five occasions when staff did not give their support to people in the most dignified way. We have made a recommendation about this. At other times, staff displayed kind, caring and friendly attitudes. People we spoke with told us staff were nice and polite to them and relatives echoed this. People appeared to have a good relationship with the staff and it was apparent they all knew each other well. On the whole, care workers treated people with dignity and respect whilst assisting with personal care and we saw discreet interactions took place with people who required support to eat their meals.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operations 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 the 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. In England, the local authority authorises applications to deprive people of their liberty. We found the provider was complying with their legal requirements with regards to DoLS, although decisions made in people’s best interests were not always appropriately taken or correctly recorded.
The service offered people choices at mealtimes. The food appeared appetising and was healthy, hearty and well balanced. People had a choice of two hot meals and two desserts. Alternative options were available for people who didn’t want what was offered. Special diets were catered for, such as vegetarian, diabetic and soft diets. Catering staff were familiar with people’s dietary requirements. We found that mealtimes provided added stimulation and socialisation.
Most people we spoke with during the inspection told us they felt safe living at Princes Court and most relatives confirmed this feeling. Staff were trained in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and they were able to demonstrate their awareness with regards to protecting people from abuse and their responsibilities if they suspected wrong-doing. Policies, procedures and systems were in place to support staff with the operation of the service but these we were not always up to date and in line with current guidance.
Accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated and monitored. Analysis of these had been completed up to date to identify types, places and times of events to monitor trends. The care manager had reported these events to external bodies as required. The provider also monitored and analysed this information to track trends throughout the organisation.
People and relatives told us they generally felt there was enough staff employed at the service and staff responded to them when called upon. We heard some comments about staff shortages and delays at times. There were mixed opinions amongst the staff team about staffing levels although most staff told us they did not feel hurried in their duties and felt they were able to meet people’s needs. Other staff felt there was not enough time to complete the daily documentation appropriately.
Routine safety and maintenance checks were carried out around the premises. People had personal emergency evacuation plans in place and tests were routinely carried out on fire fighting equipment. Other equipment and utilities were regularly checked and serviced by professional contractors. The premises were clean and tidy. The home had been decorated recently and this was on-going in one unit which caused a strong, unpleasant paint odour. Doors and handrails were painted in a contrasting colour to the walls and flooring to assist people with a dementia related condition to orientate themselves.
There were two diversional therapist’s employed at the service which meant there was ample activity provision available on weekdays. There was no cover for weekends. We saw information was on display about forthcoming events and activities and we observed people engaging in a variety of activities which were meaningful and interesting to them. We reviewed records of one to one support given to people and saw there was access to outdoor space and trips into the community.
The provider had recently made changes throughout the senior management team. There were new company directors in post who have introduced centralised teams throughout the organisation with regards to quality, human resources and governance for example.
Princes Court is divided into three units and provides nursing and residential care for up to 75 people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 68 people living at the service.
The service had 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.
We found on-going issues with the management of medicines. Concerns that we found at our last inspection were still occurring. We also found additional issues that needed to be addressed.
We found further issues with the recording of information within people’s care records. People’s care records were reviewed regularly. However, we found some documentation relating to food and fluid recordings were not fully documented to show the levels of intake. We checked that people's food and fluid needs were being met and observed this to be the case throughout our visit.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored for any trends forming. Risks to people were mitigated by staff completing risk assessments and monitoring these for any changes. Emergency procedures were in place, including suitable fire safety procedures.
People told us they felt safe and their relatives confirmed their feelings. Safeguarding procedures were understood by staff and they were able to tell us what they would do if they suspected or had any concerns. The provider displayed procedures throughout the service to support staff with any actions they may need to take of a safeguarding nature.
We found the service to be clean, tidy and appropriate standards of maintenance appeared to be in place.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have the ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. We found the provider was complying with their legal requirements.
There was generally enough staff at the service although we have made a recommendation to the provider to ensure that this remains the case. Safe recruitment procedures had been followed to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff were given opportunities to develop their skills and understanding. There were some areas for improvement, but a staff training programme was in place and the registered manager was working to ensure that all staff received suitable training to match their role. An induction process was in place to ensure new staff were competent to deliver care to people safely.
A selection of food and refreshments were available and people told us they generally enjoyed the food. One person told us, “The food is canny [good], better than when I cooked for myself!” People who were in need of additional support because of their special diet were well supported.
People told us they had access to health care professionals if they needed additional support. For example, from GP’s or chiropodists.
Adaptions to the building had been made, including clear signage and the registered manager planned to have the sensory garden for the dementia unit ready for the summer.
Staff were kind and treated people with respect and dignity. We observed people who were anxious or upset being comforted. One relative told us, “The staff are really kind. I cannot fault them.”
People told us they had choice. People told us they could get up when they wanted and had freedom to go out with friends or relatives if they chose to.
Various activities were planned for people and improvements to the number of hours used to do this had increased. There were plans to provide a fuller programme of opportunities for people in the future.
The home’s complaints procedure was available and on display around the service. Where people or relatives had made a complaint, it had been dealt with effectively.
People and their relatives were able to give feedback to the registered manager and staff through meetings and also surveys that were carried out and quality checks completed. People and relatives told us that staff were open to discussion and acted upon items that needed to be addressed.
The registered manager monitored the quality of the service provided by completing a number of audits (or checks) within the home. When issues were identified, we saw that measures had been taken, meetings held and outcomes recorded. We also saw that the service was monitored by the provider through the regional manager who visited regularly and completed their own internal checks. Although issues had been identified, we found that senior staff on each unit had not always chosen to follow the correct procedures.
We have made one recommendations regarding the care record review procedures to ensure changing needs are continually met for all people, particularly those at risk of quick decline in health.
We found two on-going breaches in relation to Regulation 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to safe care and treatment and good governance. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
We are also currently reviewing information of concern which we have received about the location and are considering our enforcement options.
The unannounced inspection took place on 22 and 24 April and 5 May 2015. We last inspected Princes Court on 30 September 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we inspected.
Princes Court is divided into three units and provides nursing and residential care for up to 75 people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 60 people living at the service.
The service had 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.
The management of medicines required improvement. For example, there were no written protocols for ‘as required’ medicines and we saw some people had duplicate medicine administration records in place, one typed and one hand written.
Risk assessments related to people’s care were completed accurately, which meant people were kept safe. Accidents and incidents were acted upon, recorded and monitored appropriately.
People told us they felt safe. One person said, “I have no worries here, I feel safe as houses.”
Staff understood safeguarding procedures and were able to describe what they would do if they thought a safeguarding incident had occurred. Staff assured us they would have no hesitation in reporting any concerns they had to the registered manager or other appropriate staff, either internally or externally to the service.
Emergency evacuation plans and procedures were in place and up to date, and the service had security systems in place to stop unauthorised entry into the property.
We found the service to be clean, tidy and odour free and standards of maintenance appeared to be good.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and DoLS. MCA assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions had been made where there were doubts about a person’s capacity to make decisions. Applications to the local authority were in the process of being made where a DoLS was required.
People confirmed staff asked for their consent before embarking on any personal care and we heard examples of this during the inspection.
We felt there were not enough staff in some parts of the service and the registered manager agreed and confirmed after the inspection that this had been rectified. The registered manager had procedures in place to ensure any staff recruited were suitable to work within the service. There was a training programme in place and staff development was monitored by the registered manager to ensure they had up to date knowledge and any training needs were met. The registered manager had procedures in place to ensure staff felt supported.
A good selection of food choices were available and people told us they enjoyed the food. One person told us, “The food is very good, there is lots of choice.”
People told us they had access to health care professionals if they needed additional support. For example, from opticians or GP’s.
The building had been adapted to suit the needs of people living there, including wider access for wheelchair users. The registered manager told us they planned to secure the garden outside with a fence and convert some of the car parking areas to the front of the building to make an enclosed garden area for the people living in the dementia unit in particular.
People were treated with warmth, respect and dignity and cared for individually. We heard positive interactions taking place between staff and people living at the service and their relatives. One person told us, “Staff are fantastic, they are always smiling, never grumble and they are really, really wonderful.”
Care records were reviewed regularly although we found care plans had not been completed with the details required to ensure people’s needs were all met.
People told us they had choice. We saw people choosing what meals and drinks they would like. One person said, “I like to get up late, I should be able to at my age.”
People were able to participate in a range of suitable activities. We spoke with the activities coordinator who was passionate about ensuring people enjoyed themselves and had “things” to do. There was a St George’s day celebration that took place during the inspection period.
People and their relatives knew how to complain. They told us they were able to meet with the registered manager and staff at any time and were able to give feedback about the service.
From observations, staff appeared motivated, enthusiastic and told us they felt supported. One member of care staff told us she was has worked at the service for seven years and “loves it.”
The registered manager held meetings for people and their relatives and surveys were in the process of being sent out to gain the views of anyone involved with the service, including people, relatives, staff and other visitors or professionals.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. When issues or shortfalls were identified, we saw actions had been taken.
We found two breaches in relation to Regulation 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to safe care and treatment and good governance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found;
Is the service caring?
This was a responsive inspection to previous non-compliance against the regulations and we did not look specifically at this area.
Is the service responsive?
This was a responsive inspection to previous noncompliance against the regulations and we did not look specifically at this area.
Is the service safe?
We found that improvements had been made to the premises since our last visit. People were protected from the risk of infection. The home was clean and had systems in place to monitor and manage the risk of infection to people who used the service and visitors.
The home had undergone a large renovation and the environment was safe and suitable for people to use. The premises were well maintained and secure.
Is the service effective?
This was a responsive inspection to previous noncompliance against the regulations and we did not look specifically at this area.
Is the service well led?
We saw the manager at the service was registered with the Commission in line with the requirements of the registration of this service and location.
We saw that people's needs were assessed and their care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. People told us they were well looked after and they were provided with a good service that met their needs. Comments included, "The girls are very good" and "I am very happy here and I love being with everybody."
The provider did not have adequate systems in place to reduce the risks of infection to protect people's health and safety.
We found that the management of medicines was appropriate and people were protected against the risks associated with medicines.
Appropriate measures were not in place to ensure the premises were well maintained throughout to provide people with a safe and suitable place to live.
Staff were well supported and received regular supervision to help them carry out their roles. The staff told us they received good training and the management were very supportive and approachable.
We found that people's privacy and dignity were respected and they received appropriate care which met their needs. One person said, "The staff always knock on my door before coming in and let me help myself as much as I can".
Although some parts of the premises were showing signs of wear and tear a plan was in place to address this in the near future.
There were systems in place to help ensure appropriate and competent staff were recruited to care for the people who lived in the home.
The provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.