You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 December 2015

The Limes 1 is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 22 people. There were 19 people living in the home when we visited. Accommodation is provided over two floors. There are communal toilets and bathrooms for people to use. All bedrooms are for single occupancy with some having ensuite facilities. There are communal areas, including lounge areas, a dining room and a large garden area for people and their guests to use.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 that they felt safe living at the home. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures to ensure that people were protected from harm. Staff were also aware of whistleblowing procedures and would have no hesitation in reporting any concerns. People received their medication as prescribed.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff employed at the home. There were effective recruitment procedures in place to ensure that only suitable staff were employed at the home.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the registered manager and all staff were knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS application would be required. The registered manager told us that there was an application which has recently been submitted to the relevant local authorities and they were awaiting the outcome.

Staff respected and maintained people’s privacy at all times. People were provided with care and support as required and people did not have to wait for long periods of time before having their care needs met. This meant that people’s dignity was respected and that their care needs were met in a timely manner.

People’s assessed care and support needs were planned and met by staff who had a good understanding of how and when to provide people’s care whilst respecting their independence. Care records were detailed and up to date so that staff were provided with guidelines to care for people in the right way.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. Examples included appointments with their GP and a chiropodist. Risk assessments were in place to ensure that people could be safely supported at all times.

People were provided with a varied menu and had a range of meals and healthy options to choose from. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks and snacks made available to people at all times.

People’s care was provided by staff in a respectful, caring, kind and compassionate way. People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and staff supported people to take part in their chosen hobbies and or interests to prevent them from becoming socially isolated.

The home had a complaints procedure available for people and their relatives to use and all staff were aware of the procedure. Prompt action was taken to address people’s concerns and prevent any potential for recurrence.

There was an open culture within the home and people were freely able to talk and raise any issues with the registered manager and staff team. People, staff and stakeholders were provided with several ways that they could comment on the quality of their care. This included regular contact with the provider, registered manager, staff and completing annual quality assurance surveys.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 December 2015

The service was safe.

People were safely supported with taking their prescribed medication. Medication was stored, recorded and managed by staff who were assessed to be competent.

People were cared for by a sufficient number of appropriately trained staff who were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures.

Only staff who had been deemed to be suitable to work with people living at the service were employed.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 December 2015

The service was effective.

People were assisted by staff to make choices. Staff were skilled in meeting people’s assessed needs.

The registered manager and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that when needed, staff could take appropriate actions to ensure that people’s rights were protected.

People had access to a regular supply of sufficient quantities of nutritious food and drink. People were supported to eat a balanced diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 December 2015

The service was caring.

People’s care was provided with warmth and compassion and in a way which respected their independence.

Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s support needs and what was important to them.

People’s privacy and dignity was preserved by the staff at all times.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 December 2015

The service was responsive.

People, including their relatives, were involved in the assessment, planning of their care.

People were supported by staff to pursue their interests and hobbies and to access the local community.

Regular reviews were completed to ensure that people’s care needs were being met.

.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 December 2015

The service was well-led.

People’s independence was promoted and empowered by the staff and registered manager.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that the day to day management tasks and quality of the service was monitored.

There was an open culture within the home and people and staff were able to raise their concerns or issues whenever they wished.