• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Carlton Nursing Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

25 Greenway, Milnsbridge, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, HD3 4RZ (01484) 655511

Provided and run by:
Carlton Nursing Homes Ltd

All Inspections

5 and 7 May 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection of The Carlton Nursing Home took place on 5 and 7 May 2015. The first day of our visit was unannounced, however, the second day of our visit was announced. We previously inspected the service on 22 May 2014. The service was not in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 regulations at that time.

The Carlton Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 17 older people many of who are living with dementia. The home provides accommodation on the first floor and has two lounges and a dining room on the ground floor.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

People told us they felt safe.

Accidents and incidents were logged, however, we noted a recent incident which had not been reported to the local authority safeguarding team promptly.

Parts of the home were in need of redecoration, curtains were hanging off the curtain rails in two bedrooms and when we exited some of the bedrooms the doors closed with a loud noise. We were not able to clearly evidence that repairs to the premises and equipment were completed in a timely manner.

Relatives and staff told us they did not feel there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. At lunchtime we observed a person sat in the lounge from noon until 12.55 waiting for their lunch.

There was a system in place to ensure peoples medicines were managed safely.

Some of the people living at the home had a diagnosis of dementia and were not free to leave the home would they request to do so. The registered manager was aware this was a matter which needed to be looked at however, on the day of our inspection no applications had been made to the local authority to consider if a DoLS authorisation was required.

This demonstrates a breach of regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Staff received the induction, training and support they needed.

People who lived at the home told us the food was nice. Staff supported people to eat and drink in a kind, caring way. People were offered a choice of food and drinks and there were nutritious snacks available throughout the day.

Meals at lunchtime were already plated up and did not provide people with the opportunity to serve themselves or assist staff in choosing the quantities of food they wanted on their plates.

The environment lacked stimulation for people who were living with dementia. A member of staff told us there was a rummage box for people, but this was locked away.

People told us staff were caring and kind. Throughout our inspection we observed staff interacting with people in a caring, friendly, professional manner.

Staff were able to clearly describe the steps they would take to ensure the privacy and dignity of the people they cared for and supported.

The home employed an activities organiser to organise and enable people to participate in activities however, there was a lack of meaningful activities for a number of people who lived at the home.

Peoples care plans detailed the care and support the required and included information about peoples likes and dislikes. People’s daily records did not provide evidence of the care and support the received and were task focused.

Feedback about the registered manager was positive. When we spoke with the registered manager they were knowledgeable about the care and support needs of the people who lived at the home.

We were not able to evidence that peoples care and support was provided in line with current good practice guidelines for dementia care. The environment and activity programme were not conducive to supporting people who were living with dementia to ‘live well’.

Audits were completed on a regular basis which covered a number of aspects of the service delivered to people. These helped the registered manager to identify any shortfalls and take action to address these matters.

We saw evidence that regular meetings were held with staff, people who lived at the home and their relatives.

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

22 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Before this visit we had received information about people's care and support not being properly delivered. We looked at these issues during our visit and have recorded our findings within this report.

This inspection was led by one inspector. We carried out the inspection with our five questions in mind.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with the provider's governance lead, the manager, speaking with a relative, the staff supporting people who lived at the service and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We looked at a sample of two care records and saw each person had a care plan and risk assessment which covered their needs. We saw regular reviews of the care plans had taken place. We found the information in each plan was person centred and included detailed information about the support people required and their personal preferences.

We found the service to be clean and hygienic.

Is the service effective?

We looked at a sample of two care records and saw each person had a variety of person centred, decision specific mental capacity assessments.

For example, one person required bed safety rails. We saw a capacity assessment had been completed in regard to their need for bed safety rails. The records also evidenced the best interest meeting that had been held and provided the names of the people who had been involved in making this decision. Following this process demonstrates openness and transparency in providing services for people who lack capacity as prescribed in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff who obviously knew people well.

We saw staff were patient and encouraging when supporting people.

Is the service responsive?

The governance lead told us they had begun to trial a new system to capture the views of people who used the service. We saw this survey asked a number of simple questions. Each question had at the side of it a picture of a face which indicated the emotion.

The service had not received any formal complaints in the last six months. The governance lead told us they were going to commence logging both formal and informal concerns raised to the service.

Is the service well led?

Mandatory training records were up to date and staff had received regular supervision.

We spoke with five staff who told us they felt supported in their role.

The service had a new manager in post. They commenced employment in April 2013. They told us they had commenced their application for the post of registered manager at the service in order to register with the Care Quality Commission.

4 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Due to their complex care needs none of the people who lived at the home were able to tell us about the care and support they received at the home.

During our visit we looked at the care records of five people who lived at the home. We saw evidence that people and their relatives were involved in making choices; decisions regarding their care and people's views and opinions were recorded.

We observed positive interactions between care workers and people using the service and staff spoke with people in a polite and respectful manner.

Staff told us that they enjoyed working at the home but also felt that there were not enough of them to meet people's needs properly.

28 February 2013

During a routine inspection

Due to their complex care needs none of the people who lived at the home were able to tell us about the care and support they received at the home.

We spoke with one visitor who told us that they were very satisfied with the care their relative received. They said that the staff were very good but felt that there were not enough of them.

Staff told us that they enjoyed working at the home but also felt that there were not enough of them to meet people's needs properly.