Archived: Tealbeck House

Updated 29 June 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 checked 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 inspection took place on 1 and 9 May 2018 and was unannounced. We last inspected Tealbeck house in April 2017. At that inspection, we rated the service ‘requires improvement’ overall.

The inspection was conducted by one adult social care inspector and an expert-by-experience. 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 the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included reviewing information received from the service, such as statutory notifications. We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with nine people who use the service, four relatives and seven staff, including the manager, team leaders, care staff and maintenance staff. We also spoke with a visiting health professional and a visiting social worker. We conducted a tour of the premises and observed a lunch time meal.

We also reviewed a range of documents relevant to people’s care, this included six care plans, six medicines administration records, six risk assessments and four mental capacity assessments. We also looked documents such as quality monitoring processes, staff surveys, accident and incident reports, meeting minutes, five staff files and health and safety checks.

Updated 29 June 2018

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 1 and 9 May 2018. At the last inspection in April 2017 we found the service was in breach of Regulation 13 (Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we found the service had made the required improvements.

Tealbeck House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of the inspection there were 45 people living in the home, which comprised two floors and communal lounge, dining area and conservatory.

There was not a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection, however the service had appointed a manager in February 2018 who was in the process of applying to register with CQC. 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.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and that there were enough staff to meet their care needs. Staff were recruited safely. Staff were trained in protecting people from abuse and there were processes in place to ensure issues were raised and investigated appropriately.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely, and the premises were made secure, regular maintenance and equipment checks were undertaken. Risks to people were assessed appropriately and people were protected from infection.

Staff received appropriate levels of training and support through induction, supervision and appraisal. People told us they felt confident staff were well trained and competent to perform their duties.

People were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet and they told us they enjoyed the food provided to them. People’s health and wellbeing was also monitored, and staff were proactive in requested advice and guidance from medical professionals where necessary.

People told us staff were kind caring and compassionate. Staff were able to describe how they supported people to remain independent and care plans provided further guidance on how to support people. Staff were also able to describe how they protected people’s privacy and dignity.

Care plans were written in a person-centred way which took into account their likes, dislikes and preferences. Conversations around end of life preferences were not always recorded and followed up. We have made a recommendation about the recording of end of life care plans.

There were a range of activities on offer and efforts had been made to improve the range of activities and community links, however some staff said that this required further resource and improvement to ensure everyone could enjoy meaningful activities. We have made a recommendation about activities provision at the service.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the manager and confident in their leadership of the service.

The provider was able to evidence how it engaged with staff and people using the service through meetings and surveys.

There was a quality monitoring system in place which provided oversight and enabled the provider to analyse trends and themes, as well as provide support to the manager.