Catterall House Care Home

Updated 6 August 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

We received information of concern about infection control and prevention measures at this service. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 25 June 2021 and was unannounced.

Updated 6 August 2021

Catterall House Care Home was inspected on the 03 and 04 January 2019 and the first day was unannounced. We revisited the home on the 09 January 2019. This was to complete the inspection and meet the registered provider.

Catterall House Care Home 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.

Catterall House is located on the outskirts of Garstang and is within easy reach of the Cities of Preston and Lancaster. Accommodation is provided for up to 24 people who need help with personal care. Most bedrooms are of single occupancy. Bathrooms are located throughout the home. A variety of sitting rooms are accessible and a separate dining room is provided. There is parking available at the home. The majority of bedroom accommodation is for single occupancy although there are some shared bedrooms for people who would prefer this option. A range of aids and adaptations are in place for people whose mobility might be affected.

In May 2018 Catterall House Care Home had been purchased by a new registered provider and was in the process of adopting new working processes, procedures and paperwork. The registered manager at Catterall House Care Home had remained the same. This is the first inspection of the service under the new ownership arrangements.

At the time of the inspection visit there was a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 individual risk assessments were carried out in key areas such as nutrition, falls and skin integrity. Care records also contained information regarding people’s preferences and social histories. On the first day of the inspection we found information was sometimes difficult to find and information was not always present. The registered manager explained they were currently trialling new documentation and would ensure the records were updated. Prior to the inspection being concluded we saw this had been carried out. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable of people’s needs and the action required to minimise identified risk.

We have made a recommendation regarding the documentation of people’s care needs.

Staff told us and we saw documentation which evidenced staff attended training to enable them to maintain and update their skills. We noted not all staff had attended the required training. The registered manager told us this was as additional staff had been employed by the home as the numbers of people living at the home had increased. They further explained training was planned to be completed by the 01 April 2019. Staff we spoke with confirmed training was planned. We also saw evidence and staff confirmed, they had regular supervision with their line manager to discuss their performance.

People and relatives we spoke with confirmed they were consulted in decision making and the planning of care. One person who lived at the home told us, “Oh yes, they talk to me, we chat and they write down what I say.”

We checked to see safe recruitment procedures were followed. We found the files contained employment checks, references and a full employment history.

People and relatives told us staff were friendly and respectful. We observed caring and warm interactions between people who lived at the home and staff.

We found the home was clean and tidy and staff were seen to wear protective clothing when this was required. Personal protective equipment was available in key areas of the home for staff to access if this was needed.

Refurbishment of the home was taking place and relatives, staff and people who lived at the home told us they welcomed this.

We saw documentation which evidenced the service sought feedback from people who lived at the home and relatives. Documentation asked people to share their opinions on what the home did well and what needed to improve. The registered provider told us they were committed to improving the service provided.

People who lived at the home told us they did not have to wait for help. They told us staff responded quickly to them. We timed two call bells which were both answered promptly. We observed staff were unrushed and relaxed as they carried out their duties. Staff and relatives, we spoke with voiced no concerns regarding the staffing arrangements at the home. Rotas we viewed showed staffing was arranged in advance and if extra staff were required, these were provided. The home employed cooks, a housekeeper and an activities co-ordinator as well as staff who delivered care.

People were asked to express their end of life wishes. Person centred documentation was available to plan this area of people’s care if people wanted to share their needs, wishes and preferences.

People told us they had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. Documentation we viewed showed people were supported to access further healthcare advice if this was required.

We found medicines were managed safely. We observed medicines being administered and saw this was done in a safe and person-centred way. We reviewed medicines records and these indicated people received their medicines as prescribed.

People told us they had a choice of meals to choose from and they enjoyed the meals provided. We saw people were offered a choice of meals during the inspection and we observed the lunchtime meal. People were given the meal of their choice and were offered alternatives if they chose not to eat their meal. Staff gently encouraged people to eat and drink and we saw people responded positively to this.

Staff we spoke with knew the needs and wishes of people who lived at the home. Staff spoke fondly of the people they supported and said they valued them as individuals. Staff were respectful with people who lived at the home and people told us they had positive relationships with staff who supported them. People who lived at the home told us they liked the staff who supported them. One person described the staff as, “lovely.”

Staff told us they were committed to protecting people at the home from abuse and would raise any concerns with the registered manager, or the local authority safeguarding team. The number of the local authority safeguarding team was displayed on a notice board at the home so staff, relatives and people who used the service could raise concerns if they wished to do so.

There was a complaints procedure available at the home. This was displayed in the reception area of the home and people we spoke with told us were confident any complaints would be investigated. Relatives told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and told us they felt any complaints or comments they made would be responded to.

People told us there were a range of activities provided. They said they could take part in these if they wished to do so. During the inspection we saw people were supported to join in social activities if they wished to do so.

The registered manager demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us they were enabled to make decisions and staff told us they would help people with decision making if this was required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control in their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Relatives we spoke with told us they could speak with the registered manager if they wished to do so and they found the registered manager approachable.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.