You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out checks at Pilton House using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 October 2015

An unannounced inspection was completed at this service on 11 and 14 September 2015. Pilton House Trust is registered to provider accommodation and support for up to 27 people. The service provides this support to older people and people living with dementia. It does not provide nursing care. At the time of this inspection there were 25 people living at the service.

A registered manager was in post but was about to de-register as she has taken over the role as fund raiser for the trust. The deputy manager had taken over the role as the manager, having day to day responsibility for the running of the service and it is her intention to apply to register with CQC shortly. 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 2014 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection, applications had been made to the local authority in relation to people who lived at the service. The manager told us these were waiting to be approved.

People said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff knew people’s needs and preferences and had the right training and support to enable them to deliver care safely and effectively. Care and support was being well planned and any risks were identified and actions put in place to minimise these.

People were supported to eat and drink in a relaxed and unhurried way. Respect and dignity were upheld in the way staff worked with people. Staff were kind and compassionate towards people and their relatives.

Healthcare professionals said people’s healthcare needs were being well met and the staff team were proactive in seeking advice in a timely way to ensure this. One healthcare professional said ‘‘I have been very impressed with the way this service is working with the person to reduce their medication and ensure their emotional needs are met.’’

There were enough staff available to ensure people’s needs were being met in a timely way. People spoke highly about the staff group who supported them and we observed care and support being delivered in a kind and compassionate way. Relatives confirmed their views were considered and they were kept informed of any changes in people’s needs and wishes.

Recruitment processes were robust ensuring new staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. New staff received a comprehensive induction to enable them to gain skills and confidence in working in the service and to understand individual’s needs.

Staff knew how to protect people from potential risk of harm and who they should report any concerns to. They also understood how to ensure people’s human rights were being considered and how to work in a way which respected people’s diversity. People were offered a range of activities and consideration was being given to how they could support people to access the local community more. This included having their own minibus to get people out to places of local interest.

The provider ensured the home was safe and audits were used to review the quality of care and support being provided, taking into consideration the views of people using the service and the staff working there. Any complaints or concerns were dealt with swiftly and comprehensively.

The ethos and culture of the service was to promote independence for as long as possible and ensure people were given choices in all aspects of their daily lives. Staff understood and promoted this ethos in the way they delivered care and supported people.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was safe.

Recruitment practices were robust and demonstrated staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The risks to people were assessed and actions were put in place to ensure they were managed appropriately.

Medicines were well managed.

Staff knew their responsibilities to safeguard vulnerable people and to report suspected abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were trained and supported to meet their emotional and health care needs.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and support and staff obtained their consent before support was delivered. The manager knew their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to protect people.

People were supported to access healthcare services to meet their needs.

People were supported to eat and drink in an unrushed and supported way

Caring

Good

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity, kindness and respect.

People were involved in planning their care and support and their wishes respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was responsive.

Care and support was well planned and any changes to people’s needs was quickly picked up and acted upon.

People or their relatives concerns and complaints were dealt with swiftly and comprehensively.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was well-led.

The home was well-run by the manager who supported the staff team and promoted an open and inclusive culture.

Systems ensured the records; training, environment and equipment were all monitored on a regular basis. This helped to ensure the service was safe and quality monitoring was an on-going process. The views of people and their relatives were part of this process.