Background to this inspection
Updated
13 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.
Before we visited the home we checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included any notifications and safeguarding alerts. We also contacted the local borough contracts and commissioning team that had placements at the home, the local Healthwatch and the local borough safeguarding team. Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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.
The inspection team consisted one inspector and an expert by experience, who had experience with older people with dementia. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.
During our inspection we observed how the staff interacted with people who used the service and also looked at people’s bedrooms and bathrooms with their permission. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with five people who lived in the service and two relatives after the inspection. We spoke with the registered manager, one senior care worker, one care worker, the activities co-ordinator, the maintenance person and the chef. We looked at five care files, staff duty rosters, five staff files, a range of audits, minutes for various meetings, medicines records, accidents and incidents, training information, safeguarding information, health and safety folder, and policies and procedures for the service.
Updated
13 July 2016
We inspected Manor 1 on 22 and 29 June 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. At the last inspection in July 2013 the service was found to be meeting the regulations we looked at.
Manor 1 is a residential home that provides care for up to 16 older people some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 15 people using the service when we visited.
There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
People and their relatives told us they did not think there were enough staff. We have made a recommendation about staffing levels for the weekend.
The experiences of people who lived at the home were positive. People told us they felt safe living at the home, staff were kind and the care they received was good. We found staff had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults.
People’s needs were assessed and their preferences identified as much as possible across all aspects of their care. Risks were identified and plans in place to monitor and reduce risks. People had access to relevant health professionals when they needed them. Medicines were stored and administered safely.
Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA and DoLS is law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves or whom the state has decided their liberty needs to be deprived in their own best interests.
People had mixed views about the food. We saw people were able to choose what they ate and drank. People had access to health care professionals as appropriate. People had opportunities to engage in a range of social events and activities. However people who could not leave their room told us they wanted more stimulation.
People’s needs were met in a personalised manner. We found that care plans were in place which included information about how to meet a person’s individual and assessed needs. The service had a complaints procedure in place.
There was a clear management structure in the home. People who lived at the home, relatives and staff felt comfortable about sharing their views and talking to the registered manager if they had any concerns. Staff told us the registered manager was always supportive.