Archived: Higher Keason Care Home

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with the provider and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

At the time of our inspection the service was safe

The provider told us if they had any concerns about how people who used the service were cared for they would take their concerns seriously.

On the day of the inspection the home was clean and there were no unpleasant odours.

We saw that the administration of medicines was carried out in a safe way.

We inspected the staff rotas which showed that the provider was the sole carer on duty to meet people's needs throughout the day and night. Arrangements were in place for emergency cover by other family members.

Is the service effective?

At the time of our inspection the service was effective

People all had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. Care plans contained satisfactory information and were accessible to staff and the people who used the service. . People had access to doctors, district nurses, chiropodists and opticians and suitable records were maintained regarding this support.

Is the service caring?

At the time of our inspection the service was caring

Our observations of the care records we looked at enabled us to conclude that individual wishes regarding people's care and support were taken into account and respected.

Is the service responsive?

At the time of our inspection the service was responsive

From reviewing records we judged care plans included suitable information to assist the staff who worked at the home.

We were told by other independent professionals that communication with the home could be better

Is the service well-led?

At the time of our inspection the service was not well led. This was due to the fact that Higher Keason did not have a registered manager in place. The Registered Provider must ensure that the regulated activity accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care is managed by an individual who is registered as a manager in respect of the activity, as carried on at Higher Keason Care Home.

The home had a system to check people were happy with the service. People's personal care records, and other records kept in the home, were accurate and complete.

Activities and social interaction for people who used the service maybe compromised due to availability of staff.

We spoke with the registered provider and one person who used the service who told us they liked living at Higher Keason Farm.

We found care records and risk assessments had been updated. Daily records were not consistently completed.

We saw people had been involved in the development of care plans.

People were provided with a choice of food and drinks throughout the day.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.

People who lived at Higher Keason were complementary about the registered provider and described the provider as 'very kind' and 'a special lady'.

We were told that they both felt safe living at Higher Keason and one person described Higher Keason as 'very nice place'.

We found people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care and people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

However, people were not provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food.

People who used the service were not protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.

We spoke to a case co-ordinator from social services who visits the care home on an annual basis, they told us the owner 'is very good at managing challenging behaviours', 'she knows the people well' and 'very caring'.

Although, people who lived at Higher Keason were happy with the care they received. We found people's views and experiences were not taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

People told us they experienced good care and support, but care plan documentation and associated risk assessments were not reflective of peoples current care needs.

People who used the service told us they felt safe, but the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People received their medication, but were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We found there was an effective complaints system available.