You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

We inspected Syne Hills Care Home Limited on 2 and 7 June 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. The service provides care and support for up to 35 people. When we undertook our inspection there were 32 people living at the home.

People living at the home were of mixed ages. Some people required more assistance either because of physical illnesses or because they were experiencing difficulties coping with everyday tasks.

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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are 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 them. At the time of our inspection there one person subject to such an authorisation.

The staffing levels need to be monitored on a regular basis through a 24 hour period to ensure each person’s needs are being met. Systems need to be reviewed to ensure staffing levels are adequate to meet people's needs.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered in a consistent way through the use of a care plan. People were involved in the planning of their care and had agreed to the care provided. The information and guidance provided to staff in the care plans was clear. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe. However, attention to detail regarding possible infection control risks and thorough auditing checks need to be maintained to ensure the environment is safe and equipment is safe to use.

People were treated with kindness and respect. The staff in the home took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to the staff in the home. The staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives. Staff had taken care in finding out what people wanted from their lives and had supported them in their choices. They had used family and friends as guides to obtain information.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. Meals could be taken in a dining room, sitting rooms or people’s own bedrooms. Staff encouraged people to eat their meals and gave assistance to those that required it.

The provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited. All new staff completed training before working in the home. The staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the welfare of an individual.

People had been consulted about the development of the home and quality checks had been completed to ensure services met people’s requirements. New systems for auditing were in place and need time to be embedded and sustained to be thoroughly effective.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs. However, this needs to be monitored regularly to ensure each person’s needs are met through a 24 hour period.

Staff in the home knew how to recognise and report abuse.

Medicines were stored safely. Care must be taken to ensure records are accurately kept.

Thorough auditing checks need to be maintained to ensure there are no infection control risks and the environment is safe to live in.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was effective.

Staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff received suitable training and support to enable them to do their job.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the key requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were understood by staff and people’s legal rights protected.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was caring.

People’s needs and wishes were respected by staff.

Staff ensured people’s dignity was maintained at all times.

Staff respected people’s needs to maintain as much independence as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s care was planned and reviewed on a regular basis with them.

Activities were planned into each day and people told us how staff helped them spend their time.

People knew how to make concerns known and felt assured anything raised would be investigated.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was well-led.

People were relaxed in the company of staff and told us staff were approachable.

Audits were undertaken to measure the delivery of care, treatment and support given to people against current guidance. However these needed to be embedded to ensure sustainability.

People’s opinions were sought on the services provided and they felt those opinions were valued when asked.