We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Old Rectory Retirement 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 The Old Rectory Retirement Home, you can give feedback on this service.
The Old Rectory Retirement Home is a residential care home in Canterbury, Kent providing personal care to older people. The home can support up to 20 people and at the time of the inspection, 15 people were living in the home. The home is a two floor building. Each floor or unit has separate adapted facilities.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found.
The home was safe for people. There were procedures to protect people from abuse and staff understood how to report abuse. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to provide support to people. Risks associated with people's needs were assessed to protect them from harm. Staff followed infection control procedures to maintain the hygiene and cleanliness of the home. Accidents and incidents that had taken place in the home were reviewed to learn lessons to prevent similar incidents from re-occurring. The home's environment and premises was maintained to ensure it was safe.
Staff were provided with suitable training to ensure their skills and knowledge were up to date. Staff felt supported by the management team and received regular supervision to monitor their performance and discuss any issues. 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. People were supported to eat and drink healthy meals of their choice. The home worked with health care professionals, such as GPs, nurses and dentists to ensure people's health needs were met.
Staff were respectful and caring towards people. Staff knew how to communicate with people who had difficulty speaking. Staff understood the importance of promoting equality and diversity. People were encouraged to maintain their independence as much as they could. Staff interacted and engaged with people throughout the day.
People were protected from social isolation. Activities took place in the home and people were encouraged to participate in them if they wished. People and their relatives were supported to make complaints about the home. People received appropriate end of life care and support.
There were quality assurance systems to monitor the safety of the home through audits, checks and obtaining feedback from people and relatives.
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 10 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 re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
People were safe at the service. Staff knew about abuse and to report any concerns that they had. Risks to people were well-managed and staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people received the care they needed. People's medicines were administered by either the registered manager or senior staff and there were systems in place to ensure that this was done safely.
Staff had the training and support they needed for their roles. 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. Nutritional needs were being met and people received input from healthcare professionals when needed.
There were positive relationships between people and members of staff. Staff adapted their communication and involved people and their families in decisions about their care. People's privacy and dignity was maintained by members of staff.
Care was person-centred. People had individual care plans in place which provided staff with information about specific goals, preferences, needs and abilities. Activities were provided in the service and local community and the feedback of people and their family members, including complaints, was welcomed.
There was a positive culture at the service and staff members were motivated by their roles. The leadership of the service had changed since the last inspection; we found that staff morale was good and staff felt supported, valued and listened to. The registered manager had been in post for around four months and we were told had made many positive changes to the service which had improved the quality of care people received. They had a visible presence and were known to people, relatives and staff. There were quality assurance processes in place to monitor and review the care being provided.
This inspection took place on 14 January 2015 and was unannounced. At the previous inspection in September 2013, we found that there were no breaches of legal requirements.
The Old Rectory Retirement Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people. There were 18 people living at the home at the time of inspection. The accommodation is over two floors. A stair lift had been provided for people to access both floors during the installation of a replacement shaft lift. There are two communal lounges, a dining room, conservatory and a garden with seating.
The home was run by a registered manager who was present on the day of our visit. 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.
The premises were not secure, as the inspector gained entry to the home, without being met by any staff. The provider told us that action had been taken to address this shortfall after our visit.
The provider had robust procedures in place to make sure that a variety of checks were carried out on staff, before they started work at the home.
People told us that they felt safe at The Old Rectory. Staff understood how to recognise abuse and to report their concerns so that swift action could be taken to keep people safe. There were procedures in place for managing risks in relation to individual people and the environment.
Staff stored and managed medicines safely, but a recommendation has been made about how to check that medicines are stored at the correct temperature.
People enjoyed their meals and said that they were offered choices about what they ate. People were assessed to identify if they were at risk of poor nutrition and action was taken to address this. People’s health care needs were assessed and appropriate referrals were made to health care professionals. A relative said that when their mother was ill, the staff had called the doctor, before they had had time to raise their concerns with the registered manager.
Staff had regular training so that they could gain the skills and knowledge that they required to meet people’s needs effectively. The provider had increased staffing levels in response to changes in people’s needs.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Whilst no-one living at the home was currently subject to a DoLS, we found that the manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one.
People said that the staff were kind, caring and compassionate, and visitors said that staff were patient and understanding. Staff knew people’s likes, dislikes and past histories, so that they could support them to make decisions and engage them in conversation about topics that they enjoyed.
People’s care, treatment and support needs were clearly identified in their plans of care. Guidance was in place for staff to follow to meet people’s needs and it included information about people’s choices and preferences.
An activities co-ordinator was employed to support people in a range of hobbies and activities. This included individual and group activities as well as arranging entertainment for the home.
People knew how to make a complaint, which the registered manager took seriously. The registered manager investigated and took action to rectify any minor niggles or more serious complaints.
The home was well led. Relatives and visitors told us that the registered manager and provider were visible, involved in their care and approachable. Staff understood the aims of the home, were motivated and had confidence in the management of the home. They said that there was good communication in the staff team and that it was a good place to work.
Systems were in place to review the quality of the service and included feedback from people who lived in the home and their relatives. The results of these surveys were that the majority of people were satisfied with the care provided at the home. Where there were shortfalls, the registered manager had taken swift action to address them.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
One person who uses the service said 'It is excellent, a home from home.' Another person said 'I have noticed kindness; there is a lot of that here. Basically, the staff are kind and in old age that is important.'
People told us that they felt safe and well looked after. A visiting relative said 'I think the service is magnificent. They give individual care with humour as well as love, care and concern.' Another relative said 'My (relative) is happy here, I am delighted with the home.'
People said they could talk about any problems to the manager and to the staff. People said that they would be listened to and any problem would be sorted out. Everyone we spoke with said they had no complaints about the service.
People said that the home was clean and that their bedrooms were kept clean. People said that they were happy with their bedrooms. People told us that the food was very good and said 'There is always a choice and food is freshly cooked.'
People's health needs were supported and the service worked closely with health and social care professionals to maintain and improve people's health and well being. People said they enjoyed the activities on offer.
People told us or expressed that they felt safe and well looked after. People said 'Safe? Absolutely yes, I feel totally secure here' and 'This is an excellent home'.
People said that the staff were kind and caring. People said 'The staff are there when I need them' and 'Everything is 'for you', whatever you want, with no waiting. The staff are top notch. Nothing is too much trouble' and 'if you want them (the staff) they are there'.
People said they could talk about any problems to the manager and to the other staff. People said that they would be listened to and any problem would be sorted out. One person said 'The staff always have time for you'.
People looked happy and relaxed in the company of each other and staff. People said 'I could not have a place that is better suited to me. I have the best room I think. It is a lovely room'.
People said that the home was clean and that their bedrooms were kept clean. One person said 'The garden is wonderful'.
People told us that the food was 'very good'. People said 'The food is wonderful. We have very, very good meals'. 'We know what we are having and we always get a choice'.
A visitor told us 'It is a very nice place. They make you feel welcome and always bring you a drink and biscuits. The staff are always cheerful and friendly'.