You are here

Saltmarsh House Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 February 2017

The inspection took place on 13 December 2016. It was unannounced. At our previous inspection in August 2014 we found breaches of two of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. The provider had failed to make the necessary pre-employment checks and records of mental capacity assessments did not show that legal requirements had been met. At this inspection we found improvements had been made, and the provider was now meeting the requirements of the regulations.

Saltmarsh House Residential Care Home is registered to accommodate up to 12 people. It provides personal care services for older people who may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection people were accommodated in private rooms on three floors of an adapted private home. Shared facilities included a lounge, dining room, conservatory, and an enclosed garden.

The provider was registered as an individual (sole trader) with direct responsibility for the carrying on of the regulated activity at the location. As a "registered person" they have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. As a consequence they did not need to have a registered manager.

The provider had put arrangements in place to protect people from risks to their safety and welfare, including the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Staffing levels were sufficient to support people safely. Recruitment practices were in place to make sure only workers suitable to work in a care setting were employed. There were arrangements in place to store medicines safely and securely, and to administer them safely and in accordance with people’s preferences.

Staff received training, supervision and appraisal to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge to support people according to their needs. Staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People had a choice of home-cooked menus. People were supported to access external healthcare services, such as GPs.

Staff had developed caring relationships with people they supported. People were able to take part in decisions about their care and support and their views were listened to. Staff respected people’s independence, privacy, and dignity.

Staff delivered care and support which were based on assessments and plans which took into account people’s needs and preferences. Staff supported people to take part in leisure activities where they wanted to. People were aware of the provider’s complaints procedure, but there had been no complaints made.

The home had a welcoming, homely atmosphere. The registered provider managed the service efficiently and monitored the quality of service provided. The provider responded to feedback to improve the service people received.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 February 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected against risks to their safety and wellbeing, including the risks of abuse and avoidable harm.

The provider employed sufficient staff and carried out recruitment checks to make sure workers were suitable to work in a care setting.

Processes were in place to make sure medicines were administered and stored safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were supported by training and supervision to care for people according to their needs

Staff were aware of the legal requirements where people lacked capacity to make decisions. People were asked for their consent to care and support.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and had access to external healthcare services when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 February 2017

The service was caring.

People had developed caring relationships with staff.

People were able to participate in decisions about their care and treatment.

People’s independence, privacy and dignity were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care and treatment met their needs and took account of their preferences.

There was a complaints procedure in place. People were aware of it, but had not needed to use it.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 February 2017

The service was well led.

Management systems and processes to monitor and assess the quality of service provided were in place. The provider responded to feedback to improve the service.

There was an open, welcoming culture in which people were treated as individuals and were able to take part in decisions about their care and treatment.