You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 8 and 11 December 2017. Friary Fields is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Friary Fields Care Home provides accommodation for up to 34 older people and people living with

dementia. At the time of the inspection 15 people were living at the service.

A registered manager was present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

During the home’s previous inspection in July 2016 we identified improvements were required in relation to the management of medicines, safety to the external environment and communication between the staff team. At this inspection we found action had been taken to make these improvements and no further concerns were identified.

People were now protected against the risk of their prescribed medicines not being effectively managed. New audits and checks had been implemented; protocols were in place for people who were prescribed medicines to be taken as and when required. The medicines policy and procedure had been updated. The external environment was found to be safe; any garden equipment was stored and secured appropriately. Communication between staff had improved and staff were found to work together effectively.

People were protected from avoidable risks. Staff were aware of their role and responsibilities to protect people from of any type of abuse. Risks associated to people’s needs, including the environment had been assessed, planned for and were regularly monitored and reviewed.

People were supported by an appropriate number of staff that were deployed effectively. The service was found to be clean and hygienic; the provider was working towards an action plan with the local Clinical Commissioning Group to ensure the prevention and control of infection measures were in place. Incidents and accidents were recorded, monitored and action was taken to reduce further risks.

People were supported by staff who had completed an appropriate induction, ongoing training and opportunities to review and discuss their work and development needs. People received a choice of meals and their dietary, nutritional needs and preferences were known and understood by staff. People’s health needs had been assessed and planned for and the staff worked well with external healthcare professionals to effectively support people’s health needs and outcomes.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed when decisions were made about people’s care. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were in place for some people where required.

People were supported by staff who demonstrated a good understanding of their needs and were found to be caring and kind, showing empathy and compassionate in their approach. Staff were aware of the importance of respecting people’s privacy and dignity and they maintained high standards of this. People’s diverse needs were known and understood by staff and they were encouraged as fully as possible, to be involved in discussions and decisions about their care and support.

People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates. The environment met people’s physical needs and those living with dementia. There were no restrictions of when people’s friends or relatives could visit them.

Staff supported and encouraged people to participate in daily activities. Staff had information to support them to provide a person centred approach in the delivery of care and support. Care records were found to be up to date and responsive to people’s needs.

People were treated equally, without discrimination and systems were in place to support people who had communication needs. People had access to the provider’s complaint procedure that was provided in an appropriate format to support people’s communication needs. Plans were in place to support people who were approaching the end of their life.

The home was well led by a dedicated and caring registered manager. Staff were aware of the provider’s aims and values and were observed to adhere to these at all times. The registered manager was supported by the provider and plans were in place to continually improve the service. Staff enjoyed working at the service. The registered manager continually looked to improve the service provided and expanded their knowledge by attending locally run forums with registered managers of other services. Quality assurance processes were in place and these were effective.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities.

Risks associated with people’s needs including the environment were assessed and regularly reviewed.

There were sufficient staff available to ensure people’s needs and safety were met. Safe staff recruitment checks were completed for new staff.

People’s prescribed medicines were managed safely. Improvements with infection control measures were near completion. Accidents and incidents were monitored and action was taken to reduce further reoccurrence.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was effective.

People needs had been appropriately assessed. Systems were in place to share information with external organisations when required and appropriate to do so.

Staff received appropriate ongoing training and support. People’s rights were protected by the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when needed.

People received choices of what to eat and drink and menu options met people’s individual needs and preferences.

People received support with any associated healthcare need they had and the service worked with healthcare professionals to support people appropriately.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff who showed kindness and compassion in the way they supported them. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs.

People were supported to access independent advocates to represent their views when needed.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff and independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff had appropriate information to support them to meet people’s needs using a person centred approach. People received opportunities to participate in daily activities.

People and or their representatives, were involved as fully as possible in reviews and discussions about the care and support provided. People were supported appropriately with their communication needs.

People received opportunities to share their views and there was a complaints procedure available should they wish to complain about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was well-led.

Improvements had been made to the shortfalls identified at the last inspection.

People received opportunities to share their experience about the service.

There were quality assurance processes in place for checking and auditing safety and the service provision.

The registration and regulatory requirements were understood and met by the provider and registered manager.