• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Carders Court Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

23 Ivor Street, Castleton, Rochdale, Greater Manchester, OL11 3JA (01706) 712377

Provided and run by:
Bupa Care Homes (CFHCare) Limited

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

All Inspections

29 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Carders Court is a care home providing nursing and personal care for older people. It is situated in the Castleton area of Rochdale. The home is purpose-built, single storey and comprises of five separate houses, each with 30 single bedrooms. There were 135 people accommodated in the home at the time of the inspection. There is car parking to the front of the home and there are garden areas around each unit for residents to sit out in.

We last inspected this service in December 2015. The service did not meet all the regulations we inspected and were given requirement actions for keeping the home clean. At this inspection the home was much cleaner and the regulation was met.

The service had 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was not present for the inspection.

During this inspection we found five breaches in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff we spoke with were aware of how to protect vulnerable people and had safeguarding policies and procedures to guide them, which included the contact details of the local authority to report to any incidents to. However, some of the plans of care did not contain sufficient information to protect people from possible harm. We also found some staff were not following the directions given in the plans of care, for example for people at risk of choking.

Some aspects of medicines administration were not safe. Some of the medicines records were not signed for and hand written prescriptions had only one signature, when they should for safety have two. Some staff who administered medicines, for example, agency nurses did not know who people were and a lack of photographs may mean that people who could not identify themselves could be given the wrong medicines.

The service did not always follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Two people who did not have the mental capacity to make their own decisions had been admitted at the care home and no best interest meeting had been arranged or application for DoLS had been submitted.

Supervision and appraisal with staff was not regular and did not give staff the chance to discuss their careers or training needs.

People who complained did not always receive a satisfactory answer.

Plans of care were not always kept up to date or had been entirely completed.

Records we asked for could not always be found.

We made a recommendation that the service look at best practice training for end of life care for all staff.

Meetings with people who used the service/relatives were not held regularly on all units.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities to help protect their health and welfare.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.

The home was clean and tidy. The environment was maintained at a good level and homely in character. We saw there was a maintenance person to repair any faulty items of equipment.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

People were given choices in the food they ate and told us it was good. People were encouraged to eat and drink to ensure they were hydrated and well fed.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff told us and staff files confirmed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people who used the service. The service were also ensuring all staff received refresher training following the induction process.

People who used the service and relatives said staff were kind and caring.

There was a range of activities people could attend if they wished to help keep themselves occupied.

There were policies and procedures available for staff to follow good practice.

08 and 10 December 2015

During a routine inspection

Carders Court is a care home providing nursing and personal care for older people. It is situated in the Castleton area of Rochdale. The home is purpose-built, single storey and comprises of five separate houses, each with 30 single bedrooms. There is plenty of car parking to the front of the home and there are garden areas around each unit for residents to sit out in.

We last inspected this service in January 2015. The service did not meet all the regulations we inspected and were given requirement actions for Regulation 20 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 Records and Regulation 23 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations

2010 Supporting staff.

The service had 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During this inspection we found one breach in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We found parts of the home were not as clean as they should be, contained stained and defective equipment and unlocked cupboard doors caused a chemical or confidentiality hazard.

We have made a recommendation about the need to consistently gain consent to care and treatment for all of the people who used the service.

People who used the service said they felt safe at this care home. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of the need to report any suspected issues of abuse.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

We found the ordering, storage, administration and disposal of medication was safe.

Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities to help protect their health and welfare.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. All staff were well trained and supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

The registered manager and other senior staff were aware of their responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

People were given a nutritious diet and had choices in the food they were offered.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had an individual emergency evacuation plan and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

We observed there was a good interaction between staff and people who used the service. We observed the good relationships staff had formed with people who used the service and how they responded well to any questions or advice people wanted.

Each person had an end of life plan and staff had been trained to care for people at this difficult time.

There were regular activities on offer and people were able to utilise the themed areas. We thought there could be a better program of activities for people with dementia.

We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and were regularly reviewed.

We saw people had access to a complaints procedure which gave people the information to raise any concerns.

Policies and procedures were available to staff for them to be able to follow good practice.

The registered manager and other senior staff held meetings with people who used the service and their families to gain their views. People were also asked to give their opinions about the service in an annual survey.

21, 22 and 27 January 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Carders Court provides accommodation and support for up to 150 people. The service assists people in meeting their personal care needs, provides nursing care as well as supporting people living with dementia. On the nursing unit there are 15 transitional beds contracted by the NHS and supported by the Urgent Care Team.

The home is purpose-built, single storey and comprises of five separate houses, each with 30 single bedrooms. There is plenty of car parking to the front of the home and there are garden areas around each unit for residents to sit out in. The home is situated in the Castleton area of Rochdale.

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on the 21, 22 and 27 January 2015. At the time of our inspection there were 143 people living at the home.

The home had a registered manager however they were not available at the time of the inspection. Interim management arrangements had been put in place to support the service. On the third day of our inspection we were informed the registered manager had resigned. Alternative management arrangements were being made. 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.

We carried out a routine inspection in July 2013. All areas we assessed at that time met the relevant regulations.

At this inspection we spent time observing care and support in communal areas, spoke to people who used the service, their visitors, staff and visiting health professionals. We also looked at care, staff and management records.

People’s care plans and monitoring records were not as updated or accurate as they should have been so that people’s current and changing needs were clearly reflected. Staff did not always have access to people’s care plans to direct them in the care and support people needed. People’s care records were not always stored securely so that confidentiality was maintained.

Staff had not consistently been offered the training and support needed to carry out their roles. Training in areas of clinical practice and dementia care were needed to support the specific needs of people living at the home. Opportunities for staff to discuss their training and development needs were needed so that staff were supported and clearly guided in their work.

Policies and procedures were available to guide care staff in areas of protection, such as safeguarding adults and MCA and DoLS. Staff spoken with were able to tell us what they would do if an allegation of abuse was made to them or if they suspected that abuse had occurred. Some staff said they needed training to update their knowledge.

Managers were able to clearly demonstrate their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions. When necessary applications had been made to lawfully deprive people so that they were protected. However care staff we spoke with did not understand the principles of the MCA and DoLS procedures and how this informed their practice.

Suitable arrangements were in place in relation to fire safety and the servicing of equipment was undertaken so that people were kept safe. All areas of the home were clean, well maintained and accessible; making it a safe environment for people to live and work in. We saw procedures were in place to deal with any emergency that could affect the provision of care. We have made a recommendation about the design or layout of the environment for people with living dementia to promote their well-being and independence.

During the inspection we found people were cared for by staff that were patient and kind. Staff were seen to understand the individual needs of people and were respectful when offering support. People we spoke told us the staff were helpful and that they felt safe. Relatives told us and records showed they were consulted with and involved in the assessment, care planning and reviews to make sure people’s needs and wishes were planned for appropriately.

People were protected from inadequate nutrition and dehydration. However we received a mixed response in relation to the quality and variety of meals offered. Managers were aware improvements were needed and were working with kitchen staff to address this. Care records showed that staff monitored people’s weight and where necessary had access to dietican’s if they were nutritionally at risk.

We found the management and administration of people’s medicines was safe. Staff worked in co-operation with healthcare professionals to ensure that people received appropriate care and treatment.

We saw that relevant checks had been made when employing new staff. Sufficient numbers of staff were available to support people. We were shown how these were reviewed to make sure that staff resources were planned at the times when people needed them.

Systems were in place to show the service was being monitored and reviewed. People told us the managers and staff were approachable and felt confident they would listen and respond to any concerns raised.

You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

3 July 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we were joined by an Expert by Experience. They spent their time speaking with people who used the service as well as having lunch with a small group of people. They also spoke with staff and observed how they interacted and cared for people. In total we spoke with eight people who used the service and seven staff.

People we spoke with told us about their experiences. Their comments included; 'I can ask for anything at all', 'I don't feel out of place, I feel very comfortable here', 'I was involved with my care plan when I first came in' and 'There's plenty of staff on duty so there's always someone about'.

New documentation was in place when assessing and planning people's care. Information was written in a sensitive manner and provided good direction for staff about the needs and wishes of people and who they were to be cared for.

Suitable arrangements were in place with regards to meeting the nutritional needs of people.

The environment was of a good standard. Each unit had been refurbished, was well maintained and had been adapted to meet the physical needs of people.

Appropriate arrangements were in place when recruiting new staff ensuring their suitability to work at the home. Sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet the needs of people.

Effective systems were in place to deal with any complaints or concerns as well as monitor and review the service so that people received a good standard of care and support.

2 July 2012

During a routine inspection

During are visit we spent time on two of the units which support people who had dementia care needs. Due to their condition they were unable to answer questions about the care and support they required.

We therefore, carried out a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI). This is a tool we use to understand the quality of the experiences of people who use services and who are unable to provide feedback due to their cognitive or communication impairment. SOFI helps us assess and understand whether people who use services are receiving good quality care that meets their individual needs.

From our observations on both Linden and Brookfield units, we found staff to be very attentive and caring. They were patient, offered people choice and gave explanations when providing assistance. People were clean and tidy and were dressed appropriately.

We also spoke with several visitors to the home. People felt their relatives were well cared for and that they were kept informed about any issues. They told us that staff made them welcome and they were able to visit at any time.

Some of the comments were: 'They are good; they keep us up to date with what is going on' and 'I have no complaints; we visit regularly and all seems well'.