Archived: RNIB Kathleen Chambers House

Updated 19 September 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.

This comprehensive inspection started on 9 August 2018 and ended on 10 August 2018. Day, one was unannounced and day two was announced.

One adult social care inspector, one medicine inspector and one expert by experience carried out the inspection. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their area of expertise was dementia care.

Before the inspection we reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well, and the improvements they plan to make. We also looked at notifications sent in by the provider. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection, we met with nine people who lived at Kathleen Chambers House and saw how staff interacted with people. We also met with three family members who were closely involved in people’s care and support. We interviewed the registered manager, three care supervisors, five support workers, two kitchen staff and one maintenance person. We also spoke with three professionals that were visiting the service on the day of the inspection.

We looked at records relevant to the management of the service. These included 10 Care plans. We reviewed risk management plans, health and safety records, complaint and incident reports, nine staff recruitment files, training records, medicine management records, and performance monitoring reports.

Updated 19 September 2018

This inspection took place on 9 and 10 August 2018 and was un-announced. This is the first inspection of this service since it was re-registered from RNIB Charity to RNIB in 2017.

Kathleen Chambers House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Kathleen Chambers House can accommodate up to 40 people. At the time of the inspection there were 34 people living at Kathleen Chambers House.

Older people with sensory impairments live at Kathleen House. The building had a range of aids and adaptations in place to assist people who had mobility difficulties. All bedrooms are for single occupancy. The service was staffed 24 hours a day and all areas were accessible to wheelchair users.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in place. The manager had been registered with CQC since April 2017. 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 and their relatives told us they had complete trust in the staff and felt safe and secure living at Kathleen Chambers House. Feedback from people included, "This is the best place for [Person] staff are so good." One person said, “Oh yes I always feel safe here”. Staff showed a good awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew who to inform if they saw or had an allegation of abuse reported to them. The registered manager was also aware of their responsibility to liaise with the local authority if safeguarding concerns were raised.

Care plans were detailed and contained risk assessments that documented areas of risk to people, such as nutrition and hydration or pressure areas. Systems were in place that showed people's medicines were managed consistently and safely by staff. The provider managed the building people lived in well, there was a full-time maintenance person who monitored health and safety and staff knew about the policies and procedures in place to manage health and safety within Kathleen Chambers House.

The provider employed enough staff to meet the needs of people and there was a robust recruitment and selection process in place where staff had been subject to criminal record checks before starting work at the service.

The provider had infection control arrangements in place and the home was clean, tidy and free from any unpleasant odour. Accident and incident reporting was robust. Staff knew the reporting process. Records showed that staff had taken proper action where necessary and made changes to reduce the risk of a re-occurrence of an incident.

The provider had suitable processes to assess people’s needs and choices. The manager told us, “I always do a home visit first, I like to get to know people and families.” Staff and volunteers had the skills, knowledge, and experience to support people. Supervision and appraisals were completed regularly to develop and motivate staff to improve on the care and support being delivered.

Staff supported people to eat, drink and keep a balanced diet. People told us that they had choices of food and that the quality of the food was good. People told us they had access to healthcare services such as GPs, Dentists, and Chiropodists. There was a range of specialised facilities and equipment to help people who were blind and partially sighted, these included talking notice boards, a lift, books, magnifiers, and signage that included Braille.

Consent to care and treatment was always sought in line with legislation and guidance. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People and visitors spoke highly of the staff. Comments included, "yes, they are lovely”. And “I find them kind”.

People's privacy, dignity and independence was respected and promoted. People went out when they wanted, one person told us, “I go to the shops and staff take us to the supermarket regularly so we can do some shopping”.

People’s support plans were set out clearly and easy to read and staff regularly reviewed them. They gave a wide range of information about the person that included their preferred daily routines, likes, and dislikes and details of people and things that were important to them.

People were supported to take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant to them. The provider employed two activity co-ordinators who devised a varied activity schedule for people. These included, daily newspaper readings, book exchanges, quizzes, and craft work. The provider helped people celebrate special occasions such as birthdays and religious festivals such as Christmas.

People told us they were encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints. One person said, “I would ring the bell and speak to the manager”. Another person said, “I would complain through my daughter or keyworker”.

The provider gave care to people at the end of their lives. Staff understood the importance of supporting people to have a good end of life as well as living life to the full whilst they were fit and able to do so.

The provider had a clear vision to deliver care and support that promoted a positive culture. Care and support was person-centred, and achieved good outcomes for people. The leadership was visible and accessible. The registered manager understood the importance and responsibility of their role and had clear lines of responsibility and accountability. There was a culture of support and cohesiveness amongst managers and staff.

The provider had arrangements in place to protect people’s records. These were in line with data protection. Staff worked in partnership with key organisations to support care provision, service development, and joined-up care.

There were effective quality assurance arrangements to raise standards and drive improvements. The service worked with other health and social care professionals in line with people's specific needs. This enabled the staff to keep up to date with best practice, current guidance, and legislation. There was evidence that learning from incidents and accidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented