Archived: The Robertson Sandie Home

This service was last inspected in March 2016 and was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The Robertson Sandie 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.

There were 16 people living in the home at the time we carried out our inspection.

There was an experienced registered manager responsible for the day-to-day management of the service. 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. The registered manager had been working at the service for over 14 years.

We looked at how the service managed its recruitment of new staff and saw that this was done well and all of the required checks were carried out before staff commenced working at the home. The home had difficulty recruiting new staff as they were very clear about the value base that they required people to have to work in the home.

We spoke with five people who lived in the home and all gave positive feedback about the home and the staff who worked in it. They told us that the staff supported people well. We saw that warm, positive relationships with people were apparent and one person described the staff as “all very nice people”.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. We saw that people were supported to make their own decisions and their choices were respected.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed training had been provided to enable them to support the people with their specific needs. We found staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care. We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. We saw they knew people well and how they liked to be cared for.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were kept safely with appropriate arrangements for storage in place.

Care plans were clearly recorded. They detailed how people wished and needed to be cared for. They were regularly reviewed and updated as required. We saw that relatives were involved in supporting staff to understand how people wished to be cared for.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the service and staff meetings to seek the views of staff about the service. They also regularly spoke with the people who lived in the home. The service had some reciprocal arrangements with other services locally in case of an emergency.

The Robertson Sandie Home is in a detached Edwardian building on a residential street in Bidston, Wirral. The home has 16 bedrooms over two floors, four of which were en-suite. The bedrooms on the first floor were accessed by a lift, there were ground floor bedrooms to the rear of the building. The home had well maintained grounds. At the time of our inspection 15 people were living at the home.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of 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. The manager had been working at The Robertson Sandie Home for 12 years.

We found the home to be clean, fresh and well maintained. There had been attention given to the environment, usability of the space and adaptations made for the people living at the home. There were three different communal sitting areas in three different styles to suit people’s different preferences and tastes. Some were busy and some were quieter.

People told us they enjoyed living at the home and they felt safe living there. One person told us they felt “Very lucky” to live in the home. Another person said, “This is a fantastic place, I couldn’t imagine anywhere else being as nice as this”. People told us they liked the food provided and that choices were always available. People living at the home told us they gave feedback about the menu at the ‘residents meeting’. Different diets were catered for by the cook, this was well organised and person centred.

People we spoke with told us they joined in on the activities provided and enjoyed them. The activities provided were planned with the people living at the home. The activities co-ordinator was responsive to people’s preferences.

People’s relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe and had confidence in the home, the staff and the manager. One relative told us, “Mum’s very happy, she’s safe because they have good systems here and the right staff”. Two visiting health professionals we spoke with had confidence in the staff at the home.

There was a warm, caring and friendly atmosphere at the home. From interactions we observed it was apparent that staff knew the people living at the home well and there were good relationships between them.

We found there to be adequate staff working at the home. These staff had been safely recruited, inducted and trained. Longer standing staff had received refresher training. Staff were supported with regular supervisions with a senior member of staff and regular staff meetings.

Information was well used and documented to ensure people’s care was effective and responsive. We observed a handover between the carers on the early and late shift. We were shown how information was used on a newly installed computerised care management system. There were examples of how this had a positive impact on people’s wellbeing.

Accident and incidents were recorded and audited. The senior staff looked for patterns and made changes to people’s care if necessary.

The manager arranged for health and safety audits to take place and for regular reviews of people’s care files to ensure these were kept up to date. The health and safety audits of the environment ensured that the relevant checks and services of equipment had taken place ensuring people were safe.

People living at the home were involved in their care planning and signing off their care plan if they were able to. ‘Resident’s meetings’ were held to gain feedback from people living at the home and the manager had arranged for questionnaires to be made available to people and their relatives in a variety of formats.

The manager fostered a hardworking and person centred culture at the home. She had good relationships with people living at the home, their relatives and visiting professionals. People expressed confidence in her. Staff told us there was an open door policy and one staff member said they, “Wouldn’t wait for a supervision, if I needed to say something I’d pop in and see her”.

The manager focused on improvements and had a ‘things can be better’ approach. She had ‘development plans’ that she worked on ensuring the organisations resources had the maximum positive impact on the people living at the home.

All three relatives and the four service users we spoke to said the food was 'very good'. The chef was able to tell us how she catered for various diets, for example, diabetic and vegetarian.

All service users we spoke to said they were very happy. They all said staff respected their privacy and dignity. Staff said because it was a small home, they knew all the service users likes and dislikes. One staff member said it was 'their home not a business, they should be able to do what they want to do'. One district nurse said she has been visiting the one service user previous to her admission to the home and said the service user continues to be happy and well looked after by all the staff.

When staff were asked they were all aware of what to do in emergency situations, where to find policies and procedures and knew who to contact.

One person told us 'I feel safe living here. I have no complaints at all, if I was unhappy I would speak to the manager.' Another person told us 'It (the home) is a very well run place and the staff are very kind and respectful.'

In the entrance there was a notice board to advise people who lived in the home and their representatives of the planned resident's meeting dates. Other documents displayed were the accident procedure and fire instructions. There was an emergency file kept in the entrance to support the home's business continuity plan should they have an emergency situation.

We viewed care files and found them to be person centre and a process in place to support reviews.

We spoke with staff who told us that they felt well supported by the management and peers. The said they worked well as a team.