You are here

Alton Manor Care Home - Portsmouth Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 May 2017

Alton Manor Care Home provides accommodation, personal care and support for up to 34 people living with dementia. We conducted an unannounced inspection of this home on 10, 11 and 26 May 2016. The accommodation is arranged over three floors of a large, converted Victorian building with stair and lift access to all floors.

At the time of our inspection, there were 32 people living at the home. There were 17 care workers, six domestic, maintenance and kitchen staff, one senior care worker, one deputy manager and a registered manager. 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.

Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe, identify signs of abuse and report concerns appropriately. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people living at the home. Robust processes were in place to recruit staff, which ensured people were cared for by staff who had the appropriate checks and skills to meet their needs.

There were systems in place to ensure medication was administered safely.

There were procedures in place to identify, assess and mitigate any potential risk to people's health and wellbeing. However, actions following risk assessments in relation to skin integrity were not fully applied in every day practice. External health and social care professionals were involved in the care of people and care plans reflected this.

Where people were legally deprived of their liberty to ensure their safety, appropriate guidance had been followed and where people were unable to consent to their care the service had adhered to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received an induction and ongoing training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to carry out their role effectively. They were supported by the registered manager with supervision and appraisals.

People were encouraged to eat and drink enough to promote and maintain a balanced diet. People who had specific dietary requirements were supported to manage these.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals, but this was not always in a timely manner.

Staff involved people and their relatives in the planning of their care. People's privacy and dignity was respected and people spoke positively about their care experiences. Staff were caring and considerate when they were supporting people within the home.

People’s care plans were personalised and met the individuals’ needs. People were involved in their care planning, which was reviewed regularly and care was delivered according to the person’s preferences and wishes. People knew how to complain about their care, and complaints were logged and dealt with in a timely manner and according to policy.

People, staff and relatives spoke highly of the registered manager. There was an open and supportive culture promoted by the registered manager.

Staff told us that they felt able to go to the registered manager with any concerns or worries and they would be listened to. There were robust auditing and management systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of care provision within the home.

We made a recommendation that the service review the outcome risk assessments that come from Waterlow assessments with a high risk and take action to improve the clarity in such assessments as to what steps are taken on a case by case basis.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 May 2017

The service was safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff at the home to meet the needs of people and people were protected from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and reviewed. However, skin integrity assessments required further clarity in relation to what actions were taken when people were deemed 'high risk'.

Safe recruitment practices were followed to ensure staff were suitable to provide care.

Procedures were in place to safely support people with their medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 May 2017

The service was effective.

People had access to healthcare professionals, but this was not always in a timely manner.

Staff received an induction and ongoing training to ensure they could support people effectively.

Where people could not consent to their care the provider was

guided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 May 2017

The service was caring.

People and their relatives were involved in their care planning.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People were positive in their feedback of care provision and staff were caring and considerate.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 May 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were personalised and were assessed and reviewed according to the individual person’s preferences and wishes.

Complaints were logged and dealt with in a timely manner and in accordance with policy.

People felt able to contribute to their care plans and to raise any areas of concern which would be acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 May 2017

The service was well-led.

People, staff and relatives spoke highly of the registered manager who promoted an open and supportive culture.

Staff felt able to go to the registered manager with any concerns, that they would be listened to and action taken where appropriate.

There were robust auditing and management processes in place to monitor and improve the quality of care within the home.