You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 June 2017

Cornelia Manor RCH is a care home registered to provide accommodation for up to 34 people, including people living with a cognitive impairment. At the time of our inspection there were 32 people living in the home. The home is set out over three floors, connected by two passenger lifts. There was a choice of communal rooms where people were able to socialise and some bedrooms had en-suite facilities.

The inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 5 and 7 April 2017. The inspection was undertaken by two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

At our last inspection, in May 2016, we identified that risks to people were usually managed safely although special mattresses used to help manage the risk of pressure injuries were not always being used correctly. At this inspection we found a system was now in place for the pressure mattresses to be checked weekly by a senior staff member to ensure they were being used appropriately. However, new issues had been identified and not all risks to people and the environment were minimised meaning people were not always safe. By the second day of the inspection all new issues we identified had been addressed and appropriate action had been taken. We have made a recommendation about this.

At the previous inspection in May 2016 we found that care staff morale was low and that they felt there was a lack of consistency in management decisions. At this inspection we found there had been an improvement in staff morale and staff had increased confidence in the management decisions. There was a clear management structure in place and staff and people were encouraged to raise issues of concern with the registered manager, which they acted upon.

People, their families, staff and health professionals felt the home was well-led and were positive about the registered manager who understood the responsibilities of their role. Staff were aware of the provider’s vision and values and how they related to their work.

There was a registered manager in place at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

People and their families told us they felt the home was safe. Staff and the registered manager had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the provider’s safeguarding policy and explain the action they would take if they identified any concerns.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely. However, the medicine fridge temperature was regularly recording as being outside the safe range which meant the medicine may not always be stored at the correct temperature. In addition, there was no individual guidance specific to a person as to when their ‘as required’ medicine should be administered.

The risks relating to people’s health and welfare were assessed and these were recorded along with actions identified to reduce those risks in the least restrictive way. They were personalised and provided sufficient information to allow staff to protect people whilst promoting their independence.

People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the home and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.

Staff followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and ensure decisions were the least restrictive and made in their best interests. People and when appropriate their families were involved in discussions about their care planning, which reflected their assessed needs.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual choices and treated them with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Mealtimes were a social event and staff supported people, when necessary in a patient and friendly manner.

There was an opportunity for families to become involved in developing the service and they were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided both informally and through an annual questionnaire. They were also supported to raise complaints should they wish to.

There were systems in place to monitor quality and safety of the home provided. Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and remedial actions identified to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 8 June 2017

The service was not always safe.

Environmental and individual risks to people were not always managed and mitigated effectively.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely. However, the medicine fridge temperature was regularly recording as being outside the safe range which meant the medicine may not always be stored at the correct temperature. In addition, there was no individual guidance specific to a person as to when their ‘as required’ medicine should be administered.

People and their families felt the home was safe and staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruiting practices ensured that all appropriate checks had been completed.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff sought verbal consent from people before providing care and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

Staff received an appropriate induction and on-going training to enable them to meet the needs of people using the service.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. They had access to health professionals and other specialists if they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 June 2017

The service was caring.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and treated them with dignity and respect.

Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s choices and their privacy.

People were encouraged to maintain friendships and important relationships.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 June 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs.

Care plans were personalised and focused on individual needs and preferences.

The registered manager and provider actively sought and acted on feedback from people using the service and their families.

There was a clear process in place to deal with any complaints or concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 June 2017

The service was well-led.

The provider’s values were clear and understood by staff.

People, their families, health professionals and staff had the opportunity to become involved in developing the service.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided and manage the maintenance of the buildings and equipment.