Shaw Red Hill Care Centre

Updated 5 March 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 checked 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 took place on 3 and 8 January 2018. The first day of the inspection visit was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of three inspectors, two Experts by Experience and a specialist advisor who is a dementia nurse specialist. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection site visit, we reviewed the information we held about the service, including any statutory notifications received from the provider. A statutory notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted the local authority and Healthwatch for their views on the service. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Over the course of our inspection, we spoke with eight people who use the service, eight relatives, and two visitors. We also spoke with three social workers, a tissue viability nurse, a physiotherapist and a care home nurse practitioner. In addition, we spoke with the operations manager, the registered manager, the provider’s quality manager, the deputy manager, the clinical lead, four nurses, two activities coordinators, three senior care staff members and six care staff.

We looked at 13 people's care files, medicines records, incident and accident reports, three staff recruitment records, staff training records, complaints records, selected policies and procedures, and records associated with the provider’s quality assurance.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 5 March 2018

The inspection took place on 3 and 8 January 2018. The first day of our inspection visit was unannounced.

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

Shaw Red Hill Care Centre accommodates up to 60 people across three separate units within one adapted building, and specialises in care for people with physical disabilities and people living dementia. At the time of our inspection visit, there were 53 people living at the home.

A registered manager was in post and present during our inspection. 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.

At our last comprehensive inspection of the service on 6 December 2016, we found breaches of Regulations 9 and 10 of the Health and Social Care 2008 Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We gave the service an overall rating of Requires Improvement. These breaches related to the provider’s failure to treat people with dignity and respect, and to consistently meet people’s individual needs. The provider sent us an action plan setting out the improvements they intended to make.

At this inspection, we found the provider had made significant improvements to the service, and that they were now meeting the Regulations. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted and respected by staff and management. People received person-centred care, shaped around their individual needs, choices and preferences.

People were supported by staff who had received training in, and understood, how to protect them from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. The staffing levels maintained at the home ensured people’s individual needs could be met safely and flexibly. Systems and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed, and to protect people from the risk of infection. Accidents and incidents involving people who use the service were analysed by the management team to stop things from happening again.

People’s needs and choices were assessed in order to develop effective care plans and achieve positive outcomes for people. Staff received effective induction, training and support to enable them to fulfil their duties and responsibilities. People were supported to have a balanced diet and any risks associated with their eating and drinking were assessed and managed. Staff and management worked collaboratively with external professionals, team and agencies to ensure people received coordinated care. Steps had been taken to adapt the premises to the individual needs of the people using the service. People’s consent to care was sought and their right to make their own decisions respected.

Staff treated people in a kind and caring manner, and took the time to get to know them well. Staff protected people’s personal information, ensuring this was stored securely. People were encouraged and supported to express their views about the service.

People’s care plans reflected their individual needs and were kept under regular review. Staff supported people’s participation in a range of social activities. People and their relatives were clear how to raise a complaint about the service, and felt comfortable doing so. People received appropriate support at the end of their life.

The management team promoted a positive, open culture within the home. Staff were clear about their responsibilities, and felt able to approach management for any additional support needed. The provider’s quality assurance enabled them to drive improvement in the service people received.