Archived: Tate House

Updated 22 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 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 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 4 September 2018. One inspector and an expert by experience carried out the inspection. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed notifications that had been sent to us as these would tell us how the provider managed incidents and accidents that affected the welfare of people who used the service. We contacted the local authority safeguarding and contracts and commissioning teams for their views. We used this information to plan the inspection.

We spoke with nine people who used the service, four visitors and a visiting healthcare professional. We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, two care supervisors, three care staff, one activity organiser and three volunteers. We reviewed care records and associated medicine records for four people who used the service. We looked at records relating to the management of the service including four staff recruitment files, training records, staff rotas, maintenance files, meeting minutes, quality assurance audits, complaints management and maintenance records. We looked round the service, attended a staff handover meeting and we spoke with the facilities manager.

Updated 22 November 2018

This inspection took place on 4 September 2018 and was unannounced. This is the first inspection of this service since the provider changed from RNIB Charity to Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) in 2017.

RNIB-Tate House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. RNIB-Tate House accommodates up to 39 older people and people living with a sensory impairment in one adapted building.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

When we visited enough staff were deployed to meet people’s needs safely. Some concerns were raised with us that staffing pressures could lead to care becoming more task focused on occasion than people would wish. We have made a recommendation regarding how staffing is calculated so dependency factors and changing care needs are acted upon in a timely way.

People told us they felt safe and they knew who to speak with if they had any worries or concerns. Staff had completed safeguarding training. They said they would raise any issues of concern with a manager and were confident managers would take appropriate action.

Detailed risk assessments were in place. Staff knew how to support people safely without placing undue restrictions on them.

Medicines were stored safely and people told us they received their medicines as prescribed. We have made a recommendation regarding how medicines are ordered to reduce the potential for error.

The provider had a robust recruitment policy and procedures in place. Staff received training and support to fulfil their roles effectively.

People had assessments of their needs before they moved into the service. Care plans were comprehensive and guided staff on how to support people in a way that met their care preferences.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The environment was suitably adapted to meet the needs of people living with a sight or a physical impairment and this helped to maintain and enhance people’s independence. Equipment was kept in a good state of repair. The premises were clean and tidy and staff had access to personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met. People who used the service and relatives were extremely positive about staff approach and attitude and people told us staff respected their privacy and dignity.

People could follow their own individual pastimes and pursuits or they could choose to participate in a range of activities, which the activities organiser and volunteers organised. There were good links with the community. For example, the service hosted a Quaker meeting, which the public could attend.

There was a complaints procedure and people felt able to raise concerns and complaints.

Care staff described managers as supportive and they commented on a good team ethic. The provider had obtained external advice regarding their quality and monitoring systems and they acted upon any advice provided to them. Audits and checks were undertaken and these were used to drive improvements in quality and safety.