Archived: Neville House

Updated 20 April 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place 1 and 6 February 2018. It was unannounced on the first day and was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience who had experience of older people’s care. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including previous inspection reports and statutory notifications sent to us by the provider. Statutory notifications contain information about changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally required to send us. We contacted the local authority, other stakeholders and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we spoke with nine people who used the service, two relatives, two visiting professionals, five staff, the deputy manager and the registered manager.

We spent time looking at documents and records related to people’s care and the management of the service. We looked in detail at three people’s care plans and three people’s medicines records and a variety of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the provider.

Updated 20 April 2018

Neville House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

Neville House accommodates up to 22 older people, some of whom are living with dementia, and is situated in Chapel Allerton area of Leeds. The home is on two floors with a passenger and chair lift access to the top floor. There is a choice of single and twin-bedded rooms. The lounges, dining area, kitchen and laundry facilities are located on the ground floor. There is a garden area at the rear of the home. At the time of our inspection, 19 people were using the service.

At our last inspection in October 2015 we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

This inspection took place on1 and 6 February 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day; this meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

A registered manager was 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.

We found some improvements were needed to fully ensure the safe management of medicines. The registered manager took prompt action to ensure the concerns were addressed by the end of the inspection. We recommend that the provider keeps medicines under review to ensure the improvements made are sustained. People told us they felt safe and were supported by staff who were trained to recognise and report any signs of abuse. Risk management plans were in place to ensure people’s safe care. Staff were recruited safely and were deployed in suitable numbers to meet people’s assessed needs. The premises were in need of refurbishment in some areas. The registered manager had a plan in place to address this.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal to support them to carry out their roles well. People received care and treatment from a range of healthcare professionals as needed. People were encouraged to eat a healthy, balanced diet of their choice.

People were supported by caring and kind staff who understood their needs and knew their preferences. The majority of staff, including the registered manager, had worked at the service for a number of years which helped to ensure people had continuity in their care. Staff understood the importance of treating people with dignity and respect.

People or their relatives were involved in the planning of their or their family member’s care. Care plans and risk assessments were updated as people’s needs changed to ensure staff were fully aware of people’s needs. There were systems in place to ensure any concerns or complaints were responded to and acted upon. Activities based on people’s interests were available. Records needed to be improved to show how people were involved in and enjoyed activities. The registered manager introduced new documentation for this during our inspection.

Systems were in place to ensure the quality of the service could be monitored and improved. The provider took into account the views of people who used the service through satisfaction surveys and reviews. The registered manager and staff were committed and enthusiastic to providing a person centred service for people. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and said they felt well supported by a management team who were open and approachable.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.