We carried out a review of the data available to us about Acorn Court Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Acorn Court Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
People that were able to follow social distancing guidance were supported to have visits from their relatives through a pre booked timed system. Visits took place in designated areas of the home and were supported by care staff. Track and trace systems were in place.
The deputy manager told us that they offered support with video calling for people to maintain links with relatives who could not visit. This was offered throughout the day to support emotional wellbeing of people who used the service.
Visitors to the service were provided personal protective equipment (PPE)
Staff and people were supported with regular testing for COVID-19
Staff were trained in Infection Prevention Control (IPC) and in using PPE appropriately.
Staff were supported with staggered regular breaks to maintain social distancing.
There were risk assessments in place for staff and people who fell into high risk groups. The deputy manager had planned how to manage an outbreak of COVID-19 in the home, Including zoning of rooms and areas.
Acorn Care Home is a residential home providing personal and nursing care for up to 86 people. The service is provided in one building, which was divided into four units. Two of the units were on the ground floor and the other two were on the first and second floors. At the time of our inspection, there were 83 people using the service.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe in the service. There were systems in place to assess and manage risks to people. Staff understood adult safeguarding procedures, which meant any potential or real incidents of abuse were appropriately reported.
Although there were enough staff most of the time, there were times when the staffing levels were not adequate. The registered manager was aware of the issues and how to address them to ensure enough staff were available to meet people's needs. Staff were recruited appropriately following the provider's recruitment processes. These ensured staff were safe to work with people and had the necessary skills and experience to provide care. Staff received support, training, supervision and annual appraisals.
Overall, medicines were managed safely. However, there was one gap in the recording of medicines. The registered manager assured us that this would have been picked up through their auditing system. They said they would take appropriate action to ensure there was no gaps in the recording of medicines.
The service was clean throughout and there were systems in place to manage the risk of the spread of infections. Records of incidents and accidents were kept, and lessons were learnt, where appropriate, to ensure improvement in the service.
People had their needs assessed when they started using the service. Care plans were developed and reviewed to ensure people had the right support. Care plans were recorded electronically and on paper. Staff had access to both systems and knew people's needs. Staff were kind and respectful to people. People's privacy and dignity was respected, and staff had good knowledge of equality and diversity which meant that people's choices, preferences and human rights were respected.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to have nutritious food that reflected their preferences and needs. Staff supported people to have access to healthcare.
There were various auditing systems in place to ensure that aspects of the service were quality assured and actions taken, where shortfalls were identified. Surveys were used to gather feedback about the quality of the service. The registered manager worked with other organisations for the benefit of people using the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published on 26 May 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
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.
There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. There were recruitment practices in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with people.
People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.
People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant and accurate records. For people who had ‘as required’ medicine, there were guidelines in place to tell staff when and how to administer them.
Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of tasks such as falls and moving and handling. The registered manager ensured that actions had been taken after incidents and accidents occurred to reduce the likely hood of them happening again.
People’s human rights were protected as the registered manager ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. Where people lacked capacity to make some decisions, mental capacity assessment and best interest meetings had been undertaken, however they lacked details. Staff were heard to ask people’s consent before they provided care
Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected.
People had sufficient to eat and drink. People were offered a choice of what they would like to eat and drink. People’s weights were monitored on a regular basis to ensure that people remained healthy.
People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health and social care professionals.
Staff were trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. Staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal.
People were well cared for and positive relationships had been established between people and staff. Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.
Relatives and health professionals were involved in planning people’s care. People’s choices and views were respected by staff. Staff and the management knew people’s choices and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
People received a personalised service. Care and support was person centred and this was reflected in people’s care plans. Care plans contained information for staff to support people effectively.
There were mixed views about activities. Improvements had been made since the last inspection. There was an activity programme in place, for people who did not like to join in with group activities had 1:1 sessions. The registered manager recognised that further work needed to be done in this area.
The home listened to staff, people and relative’s views. There was a complaints procedure in place. Complaints had been responded to in line with the provider’s complaints procedure.
The management promoted an open and person centred culture. Staff told us they felt supported by the management. Relatives told us the management was approachable and responsive.
There were procedures in place to monitor and improve the quality of care provided. The management understood the requirements of CQC and sent in appropriate notifications.
Acorn Court Care Home is a nursing home for up to 86 people, with a range of support needs.
The home was split into four units; each unit had a head of unit managing the team of care staff. The units consisted of the ground floor with people who had an acquired brain injury and nursing needs, with a separate unit for people who had personal care needs only. The first and second floors were for people had nursing and end of life care needs and for people with a diagnosis of dementia.
On the day of our inspection there were 84 people living at the home.
The home was run by a registered manager. The registered manager was on annual leave on the day on inspection. ‘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 and associated regulations about how the service is run. The deputy manager oversaw the management of the service in the registered manager’s absence.
Some people’s human rights were affected as the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was not always followed. Where people lacked capacity to make some decisions, people did not always have a mental capacity assessment or best interest meeting. Staff were heard to ask people for their permission before they provided care.
Where people’s liberty was needed to be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and sent of the appropriate referrals to the local authority to ensure the person’s rights were protected.
There were not always enough opportunities for activities for people. Relatives and care staff told us that they felt there should be more activities on offer to people. The activity timetable indicated that one activity occurred daily whilst there was impromptu ‘our organisation makes people happy’ (oomph) session on the afternoon of our visit.
People’s, staff and relative’s views and opinions were sought on a regular basis. There was an annual staff and relatives survey.
People were safe guarded from the risk of abuse because staff had received training in safeguarding adults and were able to evidence to us that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns. They knew of types of abuse and where to find contact numbers for the local safeguarding team if they needed to raise concerns.
Risks to people were managed and staff had knowledge of the risks and knew how to keep people safe. Staff knew how to respond to an accident or incident. The management team had no oversight of incidents and accidents that occurred in the home. Recording certain events such as incidents and accidents means that the manager can identify possible trends, learn from events and appropriately manage high risk situations.
Care was provided to people by a sufficient number of staff who were appropriately trained. Staff were seen to support people to keep them safe.
People were protected by the systems in place to manage medicines. Medicines were administered, disposed of and stored safely. Processes were in place in relation to the correct storage of medicine. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate.
People had enough to eat and drink and was a choice of food and drink. People had access to fluids throughout the day.
People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing as they were assisted to see health and social care professionals, such as a GP or dietician when required.
Staff treated people with kindness and maintained their dignity and respect. People and their relatives told us that they felt involved in planning their care. Staff knew peoples likes, dislikes and their preferences.
People received personalised care. People’s needs were regularly reviewed and updated when things changed. Peoples care plans were not always reflect the care that they were given.
People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable to raise a complaint and that it would be dealt with effectively. There were monthly people and relatives meetings to discuss activities, what was going on in the home and improvements planned.
People, relatives and staff told us that they felt the registered manager was approachable and supportive. There was an open and honest culture in the home.
There was a quality assurance programme in place to continually improve the quality of care provided.
Staff told us that they enjoyed working at Acorn Court and liked the team atmosphere. They said they felt well supported and would not hesitate to raise concerns. People we spoke with told us that they or their relatives felt safe and secure at Acorn Court and would have no qualms about speaking to the staff or the registered manager if they were concerned about anything.
We spoke with the registered manager who told us that the service was proactive in dealing with concerns expressed by people who used the service and their representatives. A relatives' group meeting took place monthly and was run by a relative of a person who used the service. This meeting gave people the opportunity to discuss any concerns or to make suggestions to improve the service with the management of the home.
Information was made available for people who used the service and their representatives on the various ways they could make their views known and to make a complaint if they wished to do so. This information was displayed in and around the home on all floors and also contained in the service user guides.
We spoke to representatives of the people who used the service and they told us they had no concerns about the care and support their relatives received at Acorn Court and they had complete trust in the staff. One representative told us, 'The staff are just absolutely lovely and so kind. They really care about the residents. They are very respectful of people's dignity and privacy.' Another relative told us, 'I am very involved in my mother's care plan and they always call me if something happens or if they do something differently. I wouldn't have any hesitation in recommending the home to anybody.' People spoke highly of the home's management team. A relative said, 'What I really like about the home is the openness of the manager and senior staff. In fact, they make you feel just as important as the residents and they support you too".