Archived: The Nightingale Centre

Updated 19 December 2014

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

The inspection team consisted of an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Our expert had experience in services that cater for older people. 

Prior to our inspection we reviewed the data we held about the service. This included any statutory notifications that they had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We asked the provider to send us a ‘Provider information return’ that contained information about their service and this was received prior to the inspection.  

The inspector visited the head office of the service where three members of staff and the provider were spoken to about the care that they provided. The expert by experience telephoned six people who used the service and seven relatives to obtain their feedback regarding the quality of the care that was being received.  

We looked at three people’s care records, staff training, recruitment and supervision records and records relating to how the service monitored staffing levels and the quality of the service.

Updated 19 December 2014

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 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 2012, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The inspection was announced. This meant that the provider and managers knew that we were planning to carry out the inspection.

Our last scheduled inspection of this service was on 29 October 2013 where we found that all the standards we inspected had been met.

The Nightingale Centre is a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection, 53 people were receiving care and support.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

From our conversations with people and relatives it was evident the culture of the service was built around the person and their individual needs. People received care from kind and compassionate staff who understood their preferences and went out of their way to provide care and support that met their needs.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that they felt safe, listened to, that their independence was encouraged and that the staff were respectful to them. They also told us they found the staff and management approachable and could speak to them if they were concerned about anything and had confidence that their concerns would be dealt with.

Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for. They understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Staff helped people to access healthcare professionals when they became unwell or required specialist help. This included referral to other services such as the fire service, advocacy services or services to reduce the risk of social isolation to help improve people’s safety and quality of life.

The staff were happy working at the service and told us the management team and the provider were supportive, that they listened to them and that changes in care practice were implemented when concerns had been raised. The provider had taken steps to keep their knowledge about care and support services up to date so that they could implement best practice within the service and had invested in technology so they could monitor and improve the quality of the service they provided.