You are here

Aslockton Hall Nursing & Residential Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2016

This inspection took place on 6 and 7 September 2016 and was unannounced. Aslockton Hall Nursing & Residential Home provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 62 people. On the day of our inspection 53 people were using the service who had a variety of needs associated with dementia and physical health conditions.

The service did not have 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Applications had been made by two people to become registered managers.

At our last inspection in March 2016 we found that the provider was not meeting the legal requirements in a number of areas. During this inspection we checked to see if the required improvements had been made.

Assessments of the risks to people’s health and safety were not always up to date and steps to mitigate risks had not always been taken. People felt safe living at the home and staff were aware of how to protect people from the risk of abuse. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff although people sometimes experienced delays in receiving care. Further recruitment was on-going to increase the total pool of staff. People generally received their medicines as prescribed although occasional errors had occurred.

Staff had received recent training to enable them to provide effective care and further training was planned. Staff felt supported and had received supervision of their work. Where issues were noted during supervision meetings these were not effectively followed up. People enjoyed the food and were provided with sufficient to eat and drink. People received support from healthcare professionals, such as their GP, when needed.

People were asked for their consent and staff respected people’s right to make decisions. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) was not effectively utilised in order to protect people who were not able to make their own decisions about the care they received.

There were positive relationships between staff and people who lived at the home. People got on well with the staff who cared for them. The day to day decisions people made about what they wanted to do were respected by staff. People were treated with dignity and respect and their right to privacy was upheld.

People were provided with the care they needed although staff did not always provide this in a timely manner. Information in people’s care plans had improved since our previous inspection although they were not always up to date. There was a range of activities available although some people felt the activities did not match their interests. Work was underway to improve the provision of activities. People knew how to complain and told us they felt comfortable approaching the manager and staff.

The quality monitoring systems used did not always identify issues or result in improvements to the service people received. Staff did not always maintain accurate records about the care people needed or the care they had provided.

There was an open and relaxed culture in the home and the registered manager led by example. People were asked for their opinion about the service they received and their suggestions were acted upon.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2016

The service was not always safe.

Risks to people’s health and safety were not always assessed on a regular basis and steps to reduce risks had not always been taken.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs. Further recruitment was on-going to increase the total amount of staff available.

People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed.

There were systems in place to protect people from abuse.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2016

The service was not always effective.

Staff felt supported and told us their training had been effective. Further training was planned. Staff were not always effectively supported through supervision.

People were asked for their consent. Where people lacked the capacity to provide consent their rights were not always protected.

People enjoyed the food and were provided with enough to eat and drink.

Staff ensured that people had access to healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 October 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring staff who had developed positive relationships with them.

The decisions people made about their care were respected by staff.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was maintained.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2016

The service was not always responsive.

People received the care and support required however information about their care was not always up to date.

Improvements had been made to the provision of activities but further developments were required to better meet people’s needs.

People felt able to complain and knew how to do so.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2016

The service was not always well led.

There was a quality monitoring system in place however this was not always effective in identifying and resolving issues. Staff did not always maintain accurate records about the care they had provided.

There was an open and transparent culture in the home, people and staff felt able to speak up.

The manager led by example and had implemented many improvements.