The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Larmenier Village

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Preston New Road, Blackburn, Lancashire, BB2 7AL (01254) 661903

Provided and run by:
Nazareth Home Care Limited

All Inspections

3 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an announced inspection which took place on 3 November 2015. We had previously carried out an inspection in August 2014 to check that the provider had put required improvements in place to the way staff were recruited. At that inspection we found that the provider was meeting the regulation we reviewed.

Nazareth Home Care Ltd is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting a total of five people, all of whom lived in Larmenier Retirement Village where the service is based. Larmenier Retirement Village provides people over the age of 55 with apartments and social and leisure facilities to support independent living. These facilities include communal lounge areas, restaurant, coffee shop, hairdressing salon, games and activities rooms, library, allotment, cinema, chapel and therapy room. In addition to care staff, support workers are available 24 hours every day to deal with any emergencies.

The service had 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.

People who used the service told us they felt safe with staff from Larmenier Village. They told us staff were caring and always supported them to make their own decisions and choices. Staff demonstrated they had a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service. They told us they would support people to maintain their independence as much as possible.

Staff had been safely recruited and there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs.

All staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew of the correct action to take to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse. There were policies and procedures on display for staff to refer to if they had any concerns about a person who used the service. Staff told us they would always report poor practice and were confident they would be listened to by the registered manager.

People told us they always received their medicines as prescribed. However we found that the policies and procedures in place for staff to follow needed to be revised. This was to help ensure that staff were provided with the correct information regarding the different levels of support they were expected to provide to people. Medication Administration Records (MAR) also needed to contain full administration instructions to help ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Systems were in place to assess and manage any risks people might experience. Risk assessments were also in place in relation to the general environment of the retirement village.

Staff received an induction when they started work at the service. Staff also had access to regular supervision and training to help ensure they were able to carry out their role effectively. Records showed that staff had completed training in infection control, food hygiene, safeguarding adults, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People who used the service received support from staff to ensure their nutritional needs were monitored. People were also able to access meals in the restaurant on the village site and told us the food provided was of good quality.

Staff told us they were able to respond to any changes in the care people wanted or needed. This was confirmed by all the people we spoke with who used the service. We saw there were systems in place to ensure people’s care records were updated when their needs changed and staff were kept informed of these changes.

There were opportunities for people who used the service to comment on the support they received. We saw all the comments were very positive in the most recent survey distributed by the service. People told us they would feel confident to raise any concerns they might have about the service they received with staff or the registered manager.

Staff told us they enjoyed working in the service and received good support from the registered manager. Regular staff meetings took place; these were used as a forum for staff to put forward any suggestions they might have to improve the service.

Quality assurance systems were in place and were used to drive forward improvements in the service.

28 August 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection in April 2014 we found the recruitment processes did not fully safeguard the health and welfare of people who used the service.

Following the inspection we were sent an action plan informing us how the provider was amend the recruitment and selection procedures to ensure they met current regulations.

We revisited the service and looked at the recruitment and selection procedure and the records of four staff employed to work in the scheme. We also looked at the recruitment records for two people who were in the process of being appointed.

We found that the necessary arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected from unsuitable staff.

We did not speak to people who used the service during this inspection. However, we noted positive responses from people about the service they received in most recent satisfaction survey completed in July 2014.

2 April 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection visit we gathered evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with people who used the service, the staff who supported them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding policies were in place and staff understood their role in protecting the people they supported.

Systems were in place to help ensure the manager and staff reviewed and learned from accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and whistleblowing information. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

Recruitment practices were not sufficiently robust. References were not always obtained from previous employers. This put people at risk from unsuitable staff.

The competence of staff to move from one role to another within the village was not formally assessed. Staff were not supported to complete the Common Induction Standards as required in the recruitment policy. This put people at risk of being supported by staff without the appropriate skills.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to the recruitment and support of staff.

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care provided. Comments made to us included, 'Everyone has been brilliant' and 'They are all interested in making sure my wife is ok'.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Systems were in place to review plans of care both formally and informally. Records we looked at showed us care plans had been amended to address the changing needs of people.

Staff had received some training to help them meet the needs of people who used the service. A programme of refresher training was being developed to ensure staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out their role effectively.

Is the service caring?

People told us staff were always kind and caring. One person commented, 'Staff treat me very well indeed'.

Staff told us how they would support people to maintain their independence when delivering care. People told us staff always had enough time to spend with them. One person told us, 'Care workers treat us with respect and come for the right amount of time'.

Is the service responsive?

People were able to access a range of activities in the village. The service also supported people to maintain links with the local community, where necessary.

Regular meetings were held with people who lived in the village to discuss any suggestions they had regarding developments for the scheme.

The service was able to respond promptly when people's needs changed and make the necessary arrangements to ensure they received the level of care they required.

People know how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service they received. They told us the manager was always available to speak to and they were confident she would listen to them if they had any concerns.

Is the service well-led?

The service had quality assurance systems in place. The manager told us how she intended to monitor the quality of care provided as the service developed.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They told us they felt well supported and had access to appropriate training. Records we looked at showed us regular staff meetings took place. These were used as a forum to discuss service developments.