Archived: Carleton House Care Home

Updated 21 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 the 9 and 10 of February 2016 and was unannounced. Our visits were carried out by two inspectors.

Before we carried out our inspection we looked at the information we hold about the service. This included notifications received by us. Notifications are changes, events, or incidents that providers must legally inform us about. We reviewed this information and information requested from the local authority safeguarding team and quality assurance teams. We did not request a Provider Information Return (PIR) form. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the home, what the home does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we spoke with eight people living in the home, two visitors, a visiting district nurse, and nine members of staff. This included the deputy manager, two senior care staff, two kitchen staff, and four care staff. The registered manager was not at the home on the days of our inspection. We spoke to them by telephone following our visit.

Not everyone living at Carleton House Care Home was able to speak with us and tell us about their experiences of living at the service. We observed how care and support was provided to people and how people were supported to eat their lunch meal.

We looked at three peoples' care records, medication records, two staff recruitment files and staff training records. We looked at other documentation such as quality monitoring, accidents and incidents and maintenance records. We saw compliments and complaints records and records from staff and residents meetings.

Updated 21 April 2016

The inspection was unannounced and took place on the 9 and 10 February 2016.

Carleton House Care Home is a service that provides accommodation and personal care to older people and is registered for up to 27 people. It is not registered to provide nursing care. The care home is a former rectory and accommodation is provided over two floors, accessed via a lift or stairs. On the days of our inspection there were 17 people living in the home.

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.

At this inspection we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People told us they felt safe in the home. Staff understood and knew how to identify and report harm. Staff understood people’s individual care needs and took action to prevent people from coming to harm. Premises and equipment were assessed, reviewed, and maintained. Appropriate actions were taken to deal with accidents and incidents, although these were not always robustly investigated and documented. Safe recruitment practices were being followed. Medication was administered and stored safely.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs, preferences and choices. Staff had training and support from the service that equipped them to carry out their roles. Knowledge about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was variable. Assessments of mental capacity and best interests were not being made. This meant the home was not following the requirements of the MCA.

People were supported to eat and drink enough. There was sufficient staff to support people who needed assistance to eat. People were assisted to eat and drink independently if possible. Where there were concerns people’s weight, fluid and food intake was monitored and reviewed. People were supported to access external health care services when needed.

Staff showed kindness, compassion, and respect towards people living in the home. Staff demonstrated that they knew the people living in the home. People were supported to express their views and make decisions. Relationships with friends and family were supported by the service. People were supported to be independent and their dignity was protected.

The care provided met people’s needs and preferences. Staff knew people well including their personal preferences. However, people were not routinely involved in planning and reviewing their care.

An activities co-ordinator was in post. Feedback about activities was mixed. There was no regular activities timetable however there was some planned regular entertainment provided externally.

Staff felt they were listened to and supported by the registered manager. However, they did not feel supported by the provider. Care records did not provide sufficient guidance and were not effective. The service promoted a culture of openness and a desire to learn and improve. Systems were in place for people to raise concerns and provide feedback.