You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

We inspected Nazareth House on the 18 and 19 October 2016. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. There were 60 people using the service at the time of the inspection. We last inspected Nazareth House on 11 April 2014 where we found all the regulations that we looked at had been complied with.

Nazareth House is registered to care for up to 62 people who require nursing or residential care. People of all religious faiths are welcomed. It is a purpose built home that is attached to the convent of the Sisters of Nazareth. The home is situated in large well-kept gardens within easy reach of public transport and the motorway network. There is plenty of car parking and the home is only a short distance from Prestwich Village. There is level access to the front of the home, a lift to both floors and wide corridors allowing wheelchair access.

The home had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) who was present on the day of the 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found that suitable arrangements were in place to help safeguard people from abuse. Staff knew what to do if an allegation of abuse was made to them or if they suspected that abuse had occurred. Staff were able to demonstrate their understanding of the whistle blowing procedures (the reporting of unsafe and/or poor practice).

We found people were cared for by sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and experienced staff who were safely recruited. Staff received the essential training and support necessary to enable them to do their job effectively and care for people safely.

We saw people looked well cared for and there was enough equipment available to ensure people’s safety, comfort and independence were protected. People’s care records contained enough information to guide staff on the care and support required. The records showed that risks to people’s health and well-being had been identified and plans were in place to help reduce or eliminate the risk. We saw that people were involved and consulted about the development of their care plans.

People told us they received the care they needed when they needed it. They told us they considered staff were kind, had a caring attitude and felt they had the right skills and knowledge to care for them safely and properly. We saw that staff treated people with dignity, respect and patience.

The activities provided were varied and people who used the service told us they enjoyed taking part. We saw that people's religious, cultural and dietary needs and beliefs were respected.

Procedures were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection and risk assessments were in place for the safety of the premises. All areas of the home were secure, clean, well maintained and accessible for people with limited mobility; making it a safe environment for people to live and work in.

We saw that appropriate environmental risk assessments had been completed in order to promote the safety of people who used the service, members of staff and visitors. Systems were in place for carrying out regular health and safety checks and equipment was serviced and maintained regularly. Procedures were in place to deal with any emergency that could affect the provision of care, such as a failure of the electricity and water supply.

The medication system was safe and we saw how the staff worked in cooperation with other healthcare professionals to ensure that people received appropriate care and treatment.

Staff were also able to demonstrate their understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink to ensure their health care needs were met. We saw that food stocks were good and there was always a choice of meal.

To help ensure that people received safe and effective care, systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Regular checks were undertaken on all aspects of the running of the home and there were opportunities, such as resident/relative meetings and satisfaction surveys for people to comment on the facilities of the service and the quality of the care provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was safe.

We found that sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet the needs of the people who used the service. A safe system of staff recruitment was in place and suitable arrangements were in place to help safeguard people from abuse.

The system for the management of medicines was safe. The care records showed that risks to people’s health and well-being had been identified and plans were in place to help reduce or eliminate the risk.

All areas of the home were clean and well maintained and procedures were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received training to allow them to do their jobs effectively and safely and systems were in place to ensure staff received regular support and supervision.

We found the provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink to ensure their health care needs were met.

The layout of the building ensured that all areas of the home were accessible for people whose mobility was limited.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was caring.

People spoke positively of the kindness and caring attitude of the staff. We saw that staff treated people with dignity, respect and patience.

The staff showed they had a very good understanding of the needs of the people they were looking after and people's religious, cultural and dietary needs and beliefs were respected.

Specialised training was provided to help ensure that staff were able to care for people who were very ill and needed end of life care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was responsive.

The care records contained sufficient information to guide staff on the care to be provided. The records were reviewed regularly to ensure the information contained within them was fully reflective of the person’s current support needs.

The activities provided were varied and people who used the service told us they enjoyed taking part.

Suitable arrangements were in place for reporting and responding to any complaints or concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was well–led.

The home had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided and arrangements were in place to seek feedback from people who used the service.

The registered manager had notified the CQC, as required by legislation, of any incidents that had occurred at the home.