The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ford Place

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Ford Street, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2EP (01842) 755002

Provided and run by:
Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

11 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Ford Place is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 49 people some who may be living with complex nursing needs and/or dementia. They were 31 people living in the home at the time of the inspection. The accommodation is over two floors which is served by a passenger lift.

This unannounced inspection took place on 11 August 2016.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 27 July and 4 August 2015the overall rating for the home was requires improvement. With improvements needed to make the home safer, effective, responsive and well led. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the assessment and monitoring of the service. During this inspection whilst we found improvements had been made we need to see this is sustained.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. 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.

Not all staff had felt well supported due to lack of a stable management team. An operations manager and a regional director have been providing additional support to the home over the last few weeks.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The provider was acting in accordance with the requirements of the MCA including the DoLS. The provider was able to demonstrate how they supported people to make decisions about their care. Where people were unable to do so, there were records showing that decisions were being taken in their best interests. DoLS applications had been submitted to the appropriate authority. This meant that people did not have restrictions placed on them without the correct procedures being followed.

People were provided with a good choice of meals. When necessary, people were given any extra help they needed to make sure that they had enough to eat and drink to keep them healthy.

Staff had received training, which was regularly updated in order to enable them to provide care in a way which ensured people's individual and changing needs were met. Staff knew how to manage any identified risks and provided the care needed as described in each person's care record. Peoples health needs were supported as they had access to a range of visiting health and social care professionals. .. Clear arrangements were also in place for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of people's unused medicines.

The provider had a recruitment process in place and staff were only employed after all essential safety checks had been satisfactorily completed.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The regional director had carried out regular audits to assess what improvements needed to be made. Action plans had been put in place as needed.

27 July and 4 August 2015

During a routine inspection

Ford Place is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 49 people, some of whom may be living with complex nursing needs or dementia. There were 39 people who lived at the home when we visited.

This unannounced inspection took place on 27 July and 4 August 2015. The previous inspection was undertaken on 30 May 2014. At that time we found that the regulations that we assessed were being met.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of 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.

Staff had undergone training and were competent to recognise and report any incidents of harm. Potential risks to people were not always managed in a way that ensured people were kept as safe as possible.

There were not always enough staff on duty to meet people’s assessed needs. Pre-employment checks had been carried out to ensure that only staff suitable to work in a care home had been employed. Medicines were not always managed safely.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which apply to care services. People’s capacity to make decisions for themselves had been assessed. However staff’s knowledge in this area was not always sufficient to ensure that people’s rights were protected if they lacked mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People were given sufficient, nutritious food and drink but the nutritional needs of people who required special diets were not always met. People’s health was monitored by the involvement of a range of healthcare professionals.

Staff showed they cared about the people they were looking after. Relationships between people and the staff were good and staff treated people with kindness and respect. Staff ensured that people’s privacy, dignity and independence were upheld. People’s personal information was kept securely to maintain confidentiality.

People and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care. Care plans did not always contain sufficient, up to date guidance for staff to ensure that the care delivered by the staff was consistent and personalised. There were not enough activities and outings offered to keep people occupied. Complaints were responded to appropriately.

There was an open culture in the home and people, relatives, visitors and staff were offered a number of ways to make their views about the service known. Audits carried out were not always effective in identifying shortfalls and therefore were not effective in driving improvements in the quality of the service provided. Records were not always maintained as required.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

30 May 2014

During a routine inspection

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?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our discussions with eight people who use the service, two visitors, six staff and the registered manager.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with said they felt safe and told us the staff were kind and helpful.

Staff were knowledgeable about the care and support people required and the care records were detailed to ensure that people received consistent care. We found there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs.

Potential risks to people had been identified and recorded clearly in their care records. We saw that these risks had been reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that people were kept safe.

Regular gas, electrical and fire safety checks had been undertaken. This ensured the safety of people who lived within the scheme their visitors and staff.

Is the service effective?

People said they were happy and felt well looked after at Ford Place, they told us the staff always ask if them what help they need. Care records gave staff good, detailed guidance about how each person preferred their care and support to be given.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people got on well with the staff and were comfortable with them. Staff were patient, kind and showed that they respected the people who lived at Ford place. People told us that staff helped them to maintain their privacy and independence.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs were assessed before they were admitted to the home, and a care plan developed to meet those individual needs. The care plans were reviewed monthly or more frequently if required; making sure that the planned care and support was still meeting the person’s needs.

A number of activities and external entertainment were organised, which people could join in if they wanted to, and people were supported to maintain contact with friends and relatives. People were given opportunities to express their views about the running of the home.

Is the service well-led?

The manager demonstrated that the people were fully involved in all aspects of the service being provided to people. People told us they would be happy to speak with the manager or any of the staff if anything was not right.

The provider had a quality assurance system in place to make sure that the service provided by the staff was of a very high standard. A range of audits and action plans ensured that all aspects of the service were closely monitored.

Staff told us they liked working at Ford Place. Those we spoke with told us they felt well supported by the manager and the senior staff.

We found that the provider was compliant with the regulations in all the areas we assessed. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

8 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with people using the service and their relatives who told us that staff consulted them and respected and acted on the decisions they had made about the care and support they had agreed to.

People living in the home told us that activities were provided, but not every day and that they were sometimes bored.

We found that the plans of care were being reviewed and updated to ensure that they were complete and contained up to date information. We saw that once updated, they would contain the information staff members needed to ensure that the health and safety of people was promoted.

People using the service told us that they had received the nursing care and support they needed and that staff were kind and respectful.

We saw that the people's individual medication was available and monitored and found that improvements were needed to ensure that a record was always completed when medication was administered.

We found that recruitment security checks had been carried out on each member of staff and that they had suitable skills, qualifications and experience to care for people.

People using the service told us that they had to wait for between twenty to thirty minutes sometimes for a member of staff to answer the call bell.

People using the service told us that their complaints were listened to and resolved. We found that there was a complaints system in place that met the needs of people using the service.

26 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people who lived in the home. People told us that their needs were met and that they were consulted about the care and support that they were provided with. People were complimentary about the staff that cared for them and told us that they always treated them with respect and that their privacy was respected. They told us that sometimes they had to wait for help because staff members were very busy. They also told us that activities were provided but that sometimes they were bored at the weekend. They explained that the environment was comfortable and clean and that they were provided with good quality meals.

We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not comment. We observed that people living in the home were given the care, support and attention they needed and had a positive experience of being included in conversations and decision making.