You are here

Seacroft Court Nursing Home Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 August 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Seacroft Court Nursing Home is a care home with nursing providing personal and nursing care to 41 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 50 people. The service provides accommodation for people of two floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and staff were not always protected from the risk of contamination because staff did not always follow good infection control practices. Staff did not always receive training around infection control and did not follow the providers infection control policy and guidance. There were shortfalls in staffing hours allocating for cleaning and laundry.

This was a breach of Regulation 12, Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, Safe Care and Treatment.

Staff had not received training in order to keep their skills up to date and safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to raise any concerns relating to people using the service. During the Covid-19 pandemic, we identified there had been multiple staff absences. Many of these shortfalls were covered using agency staff and support from the management team. However, some shortfalls were unable to be covered in line with the providers staffing guidance. The provider continued to recruit staff and carried out appropriate checks before employment. Medicines were administered and stored safely.

The provider’s quality assurance process was not always effective. Where shortfalls in the service had been identified, action was not always taken and sustained to ensure improvements were made. The process did not identify some of the issues we found on inspection. Despite completion of some works, the environment continued not to be well maintained. There was inconsistent leadership which had affected the improvement in the service. There was no registered manager at the time of inspection. However, there was a home manager who had recently commenced employment.

This was a breach of Regulation 17, Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, Good Governance.

Since the last inspection there had been some improvement in relation to person centred care. There was evidence some activities had taken place and we observed positive interaction between staff and people. We also observed some people being supported to access the local community, where they had an ice cream near the seafront. However, people, staff and relative told us there was a lack of meaningful activities. During inspection we did not see staff engaging in other meaningful activities with people. However, we did observed people being offered choice around their care.

Staff spoke highly of the new manager and were optimistic about developments for the future. Staff and residents’ meetings had taken place and care plans were reviewed regularly. Staff worked with other agencies to enhance peoples care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was requires improvement insert (last report published 13 August 2019) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. Although some improvements had been made we found at this inspection not enough improvement had not been made and sustained and the provider was still in breach of some regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see Safe and Well-led sections of this full report.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan about how they plan to mitigate risks in relation to controlling and preventing infection.

Enforcement

We are mindf

Inspection carried out on 6 June 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Seacroft Court Nursing Home is a residential care home that provides personal and nursing care and support for up to 50 older people and/or people living with a dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 44 people living in the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

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.

There were enough care staff to meet people's needs. The cleanliness and internal environment required improvement and would benefit from a review of housekeeping staff hours and duties. The environment was tired, and several areas of the service were unclean. We saw several areas of risk in the grounds and in their current state were not a safe area for people to access.

Staff had access to policies and procedures on safeguarding and whistleblowing and knew how to identify signs of abuse and raise their concerns within the service. People told us that they felt safe.

People received their medicines from staff who were assessed as competent to do so. However, safety measures did not always identify when a medicine was out of date, we acknowledge that the registered manager removed an out of date topical medicine when we brought this to their attention.

People had their care needs assessed, but care was not always delivered in accordance with best practice guidelines.

Staff received training pertinent to their roles. New staff undertook a comprehensive induction.

People were supported by a range of health and social care professionals and records were kept for all visits and consultations.

People were provided with a balanced and nutritious diet. Special diets were catered for and staff supported people who required assistance to eat and drink.

Internal signage and the information shared on notice boards did not always reflect the needs of a person living with dementia. People’s confidential information and personal details were not stored securely. The office door was left open when unoccupied and personal care files were accessible.

People were cared for by kind and caring staff. However, we saw little evidence of staff integrating with people. There was no designated activity time. Most people were not engaged in meaningful activities or social interaction and sat in silence in the lounges. People did not always receive care that met their needs and preferences.

People had access to information advocacy services and the provider’s complaints procedure.

The registered manager is a visible leader, has an open door and is approachable. Staff report that they feel supported.

The registered manager completed regular audits. However, these did not identify or action the failings we found on our inspection.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The provider met the characteristics of Requires Improvement. This has changed from a rating of ‘Good’ at the last inspection in January 2016. More information about this is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Seacroft Court Nursing Home was last inspected on 05 January 2016 (report published11 March 2016) and was rated as ‘Good’ overall.

Why we inspected: This was an unannounced planned inspection based on our previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about Seacroft Court Nursing Home until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 5 January 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected Seacroft Court on 5 January 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. The service provides care and support for up to 50 people. When we undertook our inspection there were 44 people living at the home.

People living at the home were mainly older people. Some people required more assistance either because of physical illnesses or because they were experiencing memory loss. The home also provides end of life care.

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 themselves or others. At the time of our inspection there was no one subject to such an authorisation.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had taken into consideration the complex needs of each person to ensure their needs could be met through a 24 hour period.

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.

People were treated with kindness, compassion 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.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. And 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.

Inspection carried out on 02 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection on 02 December 2014. We did not give the provider prior knowledge about our visit.

This inspection was brought forward during to concerning information we received from other agencies direct to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Seacroft Court Nursing Home provides accommodation for persons who require personal and nursing care and can receive treatment and screening procedures to help maintain their health and well-being. It can accommodate 50 people. At the time of our inspection 34 people were using the service. People were of mixed ages and some people were suffering from dementia related illnesses.

At our last inspection on 26 June 2014 the service was not meeting two regulations. They were staffing and record keeping. The provider sent us an action plan telling us what they were going to do to ensure they complied with the regulations.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since April 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.

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 themselves and others. At the time of the inspection no people had had their freedom restricted.

We received information of concern prior to the inspection about the standard of hygiene and the possible lack of infection control methods within the home. We therefore decided to look at the infection control standards within the home at this inspection.

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. 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, some of the risks associated with people’s care needs were not always assessed and planned for and no action plans were in place.

People told us they were happy with the service they received and staff treated people with respect and were kind and compassionate toward them. People and the relatives we spoke with told us they found the staff were approachable and they could speak with them at any time if they were concerned about anything. They said they had limited contact with the manager.

Staff told us they had the knowledge and skills that they needed to support people. They did not receive all their training in a timely manner and on-going support to enable them to complete training was fragmented.

The provider had systems in place to regularly monitor, and when needed take action to continually improve the quality and safety of the service. Not all audits had been completed and some did not have action plans so it was difficult to see when tasks has been completed.

Inspection carried out on 26 June 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. We considered our 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 our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Regular checks were undertaken to ensure that the environment was safe.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are put in place to ensure a person who cannot make decisions for themselves are protected against unlawful restraint.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly. Therefore people were not put at unnecessary risk.

Accurate records were not always maintained which meant that people could be at risk from unsafe and inappropriate care and treatment arising.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them verbally but they had not seen the finished plan of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely.

People told us that they could express their views at meetings, on a one to one basis and by completing surveys.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

People commented, "Staff respect my wishes" and "All my needs are being met."

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service attended meetings throughout the year. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed. People told us that they felt their opinions were valued but said that feedback was sometimes slow when they raised issues.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

People received their prescribed medicines.

Is the service responsive?

People told us that they could speak with staff each day and share their concerns. Relatives told us they could speak with staff about their family member's needs, when that person could not make decisions for themselves.

People told us that staff sometimes did not respond to answering call bells very quickly.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed.. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes that were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

Staffing levels dropped at times due to staff leaving, sickness and holidays. The provider was taking a long time to resolve the issues raised and ensuring sufficient staff were on duty at all times to meet peoples needs.