Longlea Nursing Home

Updated 2 September 2017

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.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 24 and 25 July 2017 and was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. We looked at statutory notifications the provider was legally required to send us. Statutory notifications are information about certain incidents, events and changes that affect a service or the people using it.

We looked at the provider information return (PIR) which the provider sent to us. 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. We also looked at all the information we have collected about the service.

We were unable to speak at length to some of the people who used the service, due to their capacity to understand or communicate with us. 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 to us.

We spoke with one person who used the service; one relative; two care workers; the registered manager and the operations manager. We looked at two care records; three staff records and records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 2 September 2017

Longlea Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 22 people. During our inspection there were 19 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We previously inspected the service on the 19 and 20 May 2016. Following our visit the service received an overall rating of ‘requires improvement’ with a rating of ‘good’ in the key question is the service caring. We found there were no records to show what actions had been taken by the service when people had sustained unwitnessed injuries. The service’s safeguarding policy was not updated and did not provide staff with the necessary information to handle suspected abuse or unwitnessed injuries. The service did not ensure there were sufficient staff to provide care and support to people at night time. The service did not have sufficient suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s care needs in the absence of the registered manager. There was no structured support for new staff that required additional help whilst undertaking the induction programme and people’s social needs were not always being met. After our visit we asked the provider to complete an action plan with a date when they would be compliant. The provider submitted the action plan by the required timescale and informed us improvements would be made by November 2016.

During this visit we found the service had made improvements in all areas previously identified.

People received safe care, treatment and support from staff who were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities. Appropriate action was taken when unexplained injuries occurred and there were sufficient staff to provide care for people during the day and at night. Medicines were administered and handled safely.

People received care from staff who were appropriately inducted, supervised and appraised. The service sought consent from people in line with current guidance and legislation. People were supported to have a well-balanced diet and had access to health services and on-going health care support in order to maintain good health.

Positive caring relationships were formed between staff and people who used the service. People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted. The service sought people’s wishes and preferences in regards to end of life care.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. The service responded to people’s social well-being in order to prevent them from being isolated. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt they could confidently do this if they needed to. We have made a recommendation for the service to ensure all relevant external agencies contact details are placed in their complaints policy and ‘resident’s guide’.

People who used the service, relatives and staff felt the service was open and inclusive. Comments received included, “Management are very good and approachable” and “They (management) are most definitely supportive. They are approachable, we have no closed doors.” People received care from a service that ensured its staff members’ supervision and leadership were met. The service acted upon feedback received to improve on the quality of the service provided. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the home.