You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 June 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 01 February 2016.

High Peak Nursing Home was previously inspected in June 2013. Three breaches of legal requirements relating to the care and welfare of people using the service, staffing and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision were identified. We undertook a follow-up inspection in November 2013 and found that improvements had been made to address the breaches.

The home provides accommodation, personal and nursing care for up to 41 older people; however the majority of double rooms are used as single rooms with a maximum of 34 places provided, The registered provider is Embrace (UK) Limited. At the time of our inspection the service was accommodating 27 people.

The home is an adapted three storey country house located in a rural part of Warrington. It has a two storey purpose built extension and is set in its own grounds. Most of the rooms have en-suite toilet facilities. There is a car park provided for visitors.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager at High Peak Nursing Home. 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.

The manager was off duty on the day we inspected High Peak Nursing Home. The Regional Manager made arrangements to attend the inspection in order to provide help and assistance to staff and the inspection team and was joined later in the day by the home’s deputy manager.

During the inspection we found High Peak Nursing Home to have a warm and relaxed atmosphere and overall people living in the home appeared happy and content with the standard of care provided.

Staffing levels varied throughout the day and were structured to meet the needs of the people who used the service and to reflect the design of the building. Overall, staff spoken with reported that they felt the staffing levels were generally adequate to meet the needs of the people using the service but reported it was difficult to meet people’s needs, particularly at mealtimes.

We raised this feedback with the registered manager following our inspection who assured us that she would explore the deployment of staff in the afternoons and how the service could utilise staff more efficiently and effectively at mealtimes.

Staff recruitment systems were in place and information about prospective employees had been obtained to make sure staff did not pose a risk to people using the service.

Staff were supported through induction, regular on-going training and supervision to develop the necessary skills and competence for their roles.

People had a choice of meals and drinks at lunchtime, breakfast and supper. Special dietary needs were met, such as soft and pureed meals for people with swallowing difficulties.

Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely.

People using the service had access to a range of individualised and group activities and a choice of wholesome and nutritious meals. Records showed that people also had access to GPs, chiropodists and other health care professionals (subject to individual need).

Corporate policies were in place relating to the MCA (Mental Capacity Act (2005) and DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards). Staff understood their duty of care in relation to this protective legislation.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse and to respond to complaints.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 June 2016

The service was safe.

Policies and procedures were in place to inform staff about safeguarding adults and whistle blowing. Staff had received training in regard to safeguarding vulnerable adults and were aware of the procedures to follow if abuse was suspected.

Risk assessments had been updated regularly so that staff were aware of current risks for people using the service and the action they should take to manage them.

Recruitment procedures provided appropriate safeguards for people using the service and helped to ensure people were being cared for by staff that were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

People were protected from the risks associated with unsafe medicines management.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 June 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had access to supervision and induction, mandatory and other training that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities.

Policies and procedures relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been developed. Staff understood how this protective legislation impacted upon their work and the need to protect the rights of people who may lack capacity.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and meals planned accordingly.

Systems were in place to involve GPs and other health care professionals when necessary.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.

People were supported by committed staff that were compassionate and patient.

Staff were polite and friendly in their approach. They had a good understanding of how each person communicated their wishes and emotions.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 June 2016

The service was responsive.

Care records showed people using the service had their needs assessed, planned for and regularly reviewed.

People received care and support that met their needs and took account of their wishes and preferences.

People had access to a range of individual and group activities and received care and support which was responsive to their needs.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 June 2016

The service was well led.

The home had a registered manager who provided leadership and direction with support from senior management.

Internal auditing systems had been established so that the service could be monitored and developed. There were arrangements for people who lived in the home and their relatives to be consulted about their opinions of the service.