You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 19 November 2016. This was the first time the service had been inspected under the current registration.

Saffrons Care Home is a care home which provides care and support for up to 20 predominantly older people. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people living at the service. Some of these people were living with dementia. The service is in a residential area of Eastbourne but close to the town centre. The accommodation is spread across three floors serviced by a passenger lift. There were two lounge areas where people could choose to spend their time.

The service had a registered manager in post who was also one of the two registered providers. Day to day management of the service was carried out by the registered manager supported by the other registered provider. 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.

There were enough staff to help ensure people’s health and social needs were met. Staff were effectively deployed across the service and people’s needs were met in a timely manner. Staff were friendly and compassionate in their approach to people. People commented; “Lovely staff, very caring and patient” and “The staff have been very helpful and are always around. You don’t have to wait long if you need them.”

Risk assessments were in place with information to guide staff on how to protect people from any identified risk. We observed staff supporting people in a safe way when they were helping to move them from their chair to a wheelchair. People’s assessments were reviewed and updated regularly to help ensure they reflected their changing needs.

People told us they received their medicines as prescribed. The system for storing medicines was safe but under review. The registered manager had ordered a medicines trolley and medicines fridge to ensure the storage of medicines was robust. While the recording of medicines which required stricter controls was accurate, the record book was not a bound ledger. We have made a recommendation to the provider to obtain a more robust ledger as advised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Staff received an induction into their role when they started working at the service. Training was refreshed and staff told us it was effective. Recruitment processes were satisfactory; for example pre-employment checks had been completed to help ensure staff were suitable to work in the care sector.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a good understanding of the potential signs of abuse and how to report it. All were confident that any allegations would be fully investigated and action would be taken to make sure people were safe.

Staff supported people to be involved in and make decisions about their daily lives. People chose where they spent their time, when they got up and when they went to bed. Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Care plans were well organised and contained information covering all aspects of people’s health and social care needs. Care planning was reviewed regularly and people’s changing needs recorded. Where appropriate, relatives were included in the reviews.

People were able to take part in a range of activities of their choice. Entertainers visited the service as well as people giving talks on different topics. Where people wanted to stay in their rooms this was respected by staff.

There were a variety of methods in use to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys for people using the service and their relatives. Overall satisfaction with the service was seen to be positive and results of the most recent survey were available for people to view at various entry points to the service.

People using the service and visitors all described the management of the service as open and approachable and thought people received a good service. Relatives told us, “We chose this home because we had heard really good reports about it and we have not been disappointed” and “It’s run in a way which is homely. We always feel welcomed when we visit”.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was safe. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Staff had received training in how to recognise and report the signs of abuse.

The management and administration of medicines were safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was effective. People had access to health professionals when they needed to so their health needs were met.

Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet appropriate to their dietary needs and preferences.

Training identified as necessary for the service was updated regularly.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was caring. Staff were friendly and compassionate in their approach to people.

People's privacy and dignity was protected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was responsive. People received personalised care and support which was responsive to their changing needs.

There were opportunities for people to take part in organised activities.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident if they raised any concerns these would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was well-led. There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the service.

There were systems in place for gathering the views of people and their relatives.