You are here

Overseal Residential Care Home Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 24 August 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service on 24 August 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. At our previous visit on the 28 May 2014 the service was meeting the regulations that we checked.

Overseal Residential Care Home provides residential care for up to 30 people. At the time of our inspection there were 25 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us and we saw there were sufficient staff available to support them. Staff had knowledge about people’s care and support needs to enable support to be provided in a safe way. Staff understood what constituted abuse or poor practice and systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Medicines were managed safely and people were given their medicine as and when needed. The registered manager had undertaken thorough recruitment checks to ensure the staff employed were suitable to support people.

Staff understood people’s needs and preferences and were provided with training and supervision, to support and develop their skills. Staff gained people’s verbal consent before supporting them with any care tasks and helped people to make their own decisions when possible. Where people were unable to make decisions independently they were supported in their best interests and in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act. People received food and drink that met their nutritional needs and preferences, and were referred to healthcare professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff were caring in their approach and supported people to maintain their dignity and privacy. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them and develop their social interests. The provider sought people’s opinions to bring about changes. People knew who the registered manager was and they understood their responsibilities around registration with us. Staff felt listened to and were happy to raise concerns. People knew how to complain and we saw when complaints were made they were addressed. Quality monitoring checks were completed by the provider and when needed action was taken to make improvements.

Inspection carried out on 29 May and 5 June 2014

During a routine inspection

There were twenty eight people using the service which was registered for up to 30 adults over 65 years. Our inspection was unannounced and because of concerns raised we decided to make one of the inspections out of normal office hours and visited after 8pm. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

In April 2014 we received information of concern. We were told that medicines were not being given out in a safe manner because they were being dispensed by one member of staff and given by a different staff member. We were informed they were being left in people’s bedrooms and not taken.

The information suggested there were people at the home whose personal care needs were not being met and they were being left unattended between the shift changeovers until staff were able to care for them.

We made two inspection visits to the home. During the evening inspection we arrived at the home at 8.10pm to meet the day and night staff. Staff informed the manager that we were present and the manager and her deputy returned to the home during our inspection. The second day inspection took place on date 5 June 2014.

At both inspection visits we saw that people were cared for in a clean, hygienic and safe environment. During the evening inspection we saw that people were in the lounge and one person walked around the room freely. We found people to be clean and presentable and having their needs met. One person told us, “Staff are very nice, they come when I press the buzzer. They talk nicely to me. I feel safe here. They always remember to give me my medicine”. Another person told us “It’s marvellous, staff are nice to me they come when I press my buzzer. It feels safe here. Everything is alright.”

Other comments included, “I think the care is very good and I am happy to be here because I feel safe”. A family member also confirmed how much better they saw their relative was doing, since being at the home. They told us their relative had company and could ask for help whenever they needed it.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because risk assessments were in place that raised staff awareness and people told us they were safe at the home.

We saw people were supported to receive their medicines safely and in the way they preferred although there were some practice issues. We spoke with staff who told us one staff member sometimes administered the medicine and another staff member then gave the medicine. Both staff members were senior care workers on the shift who were trained to give medicines to people. This meant people may be at risk of not having their prescribed medicines administered correctly. The information of concern suggested staff were leaving medicines in people’s bedrooms. We did not find evidence of this at the time(s) of our inspection. This meant people were not placed at risk of finding and taking other people’s medicines.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is a law providing a system of assessment and decision making to protect people who do not have capacity to give consent themselves. We were told by the manager there was one person who needed a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard. This is where a person is restricted of their freedom and considerations are made in the person’s best interest. This was being appropriately managed and involved the appropriate authorities to manage this. A Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard was being put into place in the person’s best interest. This has been completed and the information has been sent to us.

Is the service caring?

Over the two visits, we looked at two people's care records and spoke with five people, two relatives, one health care professional and a student nurse, four staff, a deputy manager, the registered manager and the provider.

We observed people at the home as they continued with their daily activities. We observed people's routines at different times of the day. We saw they were given choices with their meals and were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. We saw people took part in the activities provided.

Is the service responsive?

There was an effective complaints system available. We saw comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately. This meant results were used to improve care at the home as people’s concerns were acted on by the provider.

In the records we looked at, people’s health care needs were recorded and monitored on a regular basis. Records demonstrated that people accessed health care professionals as and when needed. People we spoke with told us that if they were unwell staff contacted the doctor for them. This meant that people’s health care needs were met.

Is it effective?

We saw that effective recruitment processes were in place. This ensured people received care from staff who were safe to be with them and had received sufficient training to meet their needs. We saw risks were managed through effective employment checks for staff.

People we spoke with and the relatives who spoke with us did not express any concerns regarding the competency of the staff team. People were complimentary about staff who they received care and support from. Visitors told us they were happy with the way staff supported their relatives. Comments included, “The staff are very good” and, “They are helpful to my parent”.

Is the service well led?

We saw the provider made regular health and safety checks including fire safety, hoist checks and electrical safety checks. This ensured they provided a safe environment for people to use. The registered manager was in daily charge of the service supported by sufficient staff.

People’s relatives confirmed they were informed and involved in the lives of their family members. We found people were able to have their say and the provider acted on their comments.

Inspection carried out on 8 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people living at the home, two relatives and five staff. We observed staff to be assisting people when they needed help to meet their needs during the visit.

One person who spoke with us told us, “the food is very good and we are given a choice of food. There is always something that you will like”.

We observed people to have their medicines in the way they preferred. People who spoke withus told us they were happy at the home. We found the atmosphere to be pleasant and relaxing.

Inspection carried out on 7 March 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We spoke with seven staff including staff who provided indirect care or support to people at the home. They told us they understood people's needs and worked to meet those needs.

We noted that when staff supported people they generally did this is in a respectful and dignified manner and were able to promote people's independence.

People told us they were being invited to take part in more activities within the home since our last inspection. We observed people being assisted during the day and this was dignified and respectful manner. We spoke with four people, they told us they were happy at the home.

Inspection carried out on 5 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with felt involved in their care and treatment and that staff explain things to them in a way they could understand. We noted that when staff were supporting people they generally did this is in a respectful and dignified manner and were able to promote people’s independence. However, we found some inconsistencies in this area.

Care and treatment was delivered in a way that ensured people’s welfare. We saw people needed encouragement and help from staff to preserve their dignity. When we spoke with four staff they told us they understood people’s needs as they had been working at the service for a while. People told us they would like to have more activities on a daily basis in the home to make their days more interesting.

We spoke with a small group of seven people in the lounge. They told us they felt safe at the home. Two people told us they thought the home was kept clean and tidy.

Although the manager stated she felt there was enough staff, one person told us “we have to wait for two hours before we can be taken to the toilet as there are no staff around when we need them”. Two people told us there were times when they had to wait for staff to attend to their needs.

Inspection carried out on 5 August 2011

During a routine inspection

Everyone we spoke with were pleased with the standards of the care service. People told us that they liked using the service and that staff were 'good' and 'helpful'. One person said 'they're really good to us'. Relatives told us they 'couldn't fault it' and that support was 'very good'.

Most people enjoyed their food and the activities that the service provided. One person said there was an 'excellent choice' of meals and others commented on a recent outing, saying they had 'enjoyed it'.

Visiting professionals told us the staff were 'welcoming' and 'seem to know people well'. They told us they had 'no concerns' about the care and that the service responded well to professional advice and guidance. They also told us hand washing facilities needed improvement.

People told us the premises were clean and tidy and there was 'never any smell' but relatives and staff told us refurbishment was needed, particularly of the communal areas.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)