• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Cristos

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

27 Medina Villas, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 2RN (01273) 773717

Provided and run by:
Mr & Mrs A Skatulla

All Inspections

14 & 16 October 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected Cristos on the 14 and 16 October 2014. Cristos is a family run care home, registered to provide accommodation for up to 11 adults with a learning disability or older people. On the day of the inspection, 10 people were living at the home. The age group of the people currently living at the home ranged from 60 years to 90 years old. Many people living at the home had lived there for over 10 years and had formed strong friendships with staff and management. The individual care needs of people varied within the home. Many people required support with maintaining independent living skills whilst other people required daily personal care support.

Cristos is centrally located in Hove, the home provides access to the city centre and seafront. There is good access to public transport. Many people living at the home regularly accessed the local community to do their shopping, go to work or voluntary work. People spoke highly of Cristos. One person told us, “I love it here.”

A registered manager was in post, who was also the provider/owner. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection in May 2014, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements in the management of infection control, quality assurance of the home and record keeping. An action plan was received from the provider which stated they would meet the legal requirements by 31 July 2014. At this inspection we found improvements had been made but areas for improvement were still identified.

Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives and staff. This helped to improve the quality of the care provided. However, the provider’s system of monitoring, assessing and evaluating the quality of the home required addressing. We have made a recommendation for improvement in this area.

Each person had a care plan that outlined their needs and the support required to meet those needs. Care plans were personalised and included information on people’s individual likes, dislikes, daily routine and the strengths of the individual. However, people’s health and social care needs were not always considered in their care plans. We have identified this as an area of practice that required improvements.

Staff were seen smiling and laughing with people and joining in activities in the home. From observing staff interact with people, it was clear staff had spent considerable time with people, getting to know them, gaining an understanding of their personal history and building friendships with them. People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met.

People could choose how to spend their day and they took part in activities in the home and the community. People’s freedom in the home was not restricted. People regularly went out and about, coming and going from local day centres, jobs and voluntary work. People had their own front door key and were able to lock their bedroom door as well for their own privacy.

Staff received training that was relevant in supporting people with learning disabilities and older people. Staff received on-going support through handovers and staff meetings. Staff commented they felt valued, supported and could approach management with any concerns. One staff member told us, “I feel valued as an employee of Cristos.”

People were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

People’s medicines were stored safely and in line with legal regulations. People told us they received their medication on time. Staff were confident in medication administration and demonstrated a sound awareness of the importance of monitoring for any side effects of medicines.

There was a friendly, relaxed atmosphere at the home. There was an open and honest culture within the home. Staff had a clear understanding of the vision and philosophy of the home. Staff spoke passionately about how Cristos was a family home with ‘family values’ embedded into care practice.

7 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. We answered 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 describes what people who used the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is it safe?

We found, in most cases, people were protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm, abuse and breaches of their human rights.

Staff presented with knowledge of safeguarding vulnerable adults and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) but had still not received formal training.

People told us that they felt safe in the care of Cristos staff.

Risk assessments were not always accurate and fit for purpose which placed people at risk of harm.

Systems were not in place for staff to learn from incidents, accidents and near misses.

Is it effective?

People had their needs assessed and individual care plans were devised. Before anyone joined the service, a pre-admission assessment took place.

People received appropriate support from healthcare professionals when required. These included referrals to other professionals such as General Practitioner's (GPs) and dietician. We saw that care staff accompanied people to hospital appointments.

Systems were not in place to monitor, assess and improve the quality of the service.

The premises were clean and tidy however, there was not an effective system in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

Is it caring?

People looked happy and content in the company of care staff.

The service had a warm and friendly atmosphere.

People were dressed in accordance with their individual lifestyle choice. We saw that the service encouraged people to decorate their room accordingly and to bring items of importance.

Observations of the delivery of care and treatment found that staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.

Staff at all levels clearly knew the people they were supporting and caring for. They were able to tell us about people and their support needs.

Is it responsive?

People were encouraged and supported to make their own decisions. One staff member told us, 'We want people to be tell us and feel happy telling us if they are unhappy with something or want us to do something.'

Information was available on how to make a complaint and people told us they would feel happy approaching the registered manager with any concerns.

Activities were provided and people told us that they could regularly ask to do certain activities that were of importance to them.

Is it well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies.

A registered manager was in post that provided leadership, support and hands on care.

People were asked for their feedback on the service but this information was not used to improve the quality of the service.

Emergency plans were in place and understood by staff, including personal evacuation plans for each person living at the service.

7 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the last inspection in April 2013 we found Cristos non-compliant with Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008. This was because the provider had not ensured the delivery of safe care to people with mental health problems. An action plan was submitted on how the provider would safely meet the needs of people with mental health problems. At this inspection we found that the provider had taken the steps they needed to achieve compliance with Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 and ensure the safety of people with mental health problems.

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager, a senior care worker and the chef. We also spoke with four people who used the service and one relative.

We observed the delivery of care and treatment of people who used the service. Everyone we spoke with informed us they were happy with the care they had received. One person told us, 'I've made good friends here and it's a nice place.' Another person told us, 'I get to go out lots which I didn't do before.'

We found that peoples care needs and individual risks were assessed and care records were regularly updated to reflect those needs and minimise risks. We saw that care was delivered according to people's individual preferences, and in a sensitive manner. A relative told us, 'We came to have a look around and just immediately knew.'

We found that people were provided with appropriate nutrition and had a choice in relation to the food options available. We observed lunch being prepared and delivered. One person told us, 'I get to choose what I have to eat every day.' Another person told us, 'The food is nice, my favourite is chicken.'

We found that people who used the service were not protected from the risk of abuse because care staff were not appropriately trained in Safeguarding Adults or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

15 April 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 10 people who used the service at the time of our inspection. This included two people who were staying for a short period of respite care. We used a number of different methods to help us understand their views and experiences. We talked to three people who used the service, one member of staff and the manager. We observed the care provided and looked at supporting documentation. Records showed that people's care needs had been assessed, planned, reviewed and delivered in line with their individual care plan. However we found that not all needs had been assessed or included in the care plan. People's medication was managed safely. The staff were sufficiently trained. People who used the service said that staff provided them with all the support and assistance that they needed and wanted. One person said, 'Staff are marvellous'. We observed that staff were available when people needed them and supported them to attend medical appointments. Improvements had been made to the physical environment with some new carpets. Health and safety had been improved with more checks as to the safety of the environment and building.

31 October and 1 November 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were happy living in the home and with the support they had been given. One person told us "The staff are great." Another person told us "We always have fun and do fun things." People had been given choices and had been supported to lead the lifestyle of their choice.

It was clear from observations during our visit that care workers had formed good relationships with the people living at the home and understood their care and support needs.

The care and treatment for one person, who had been staying at the home on respite care, had not been planned and delivered in a way that ensured their safety and welfare.

People we spoke with told us that they felt safe and that the care workers had never raised their voices. They told us if there was something wrong they would tell one of the care workers, the deputy manager or the manager.

The provider had not taken steps to ensure that all areas of the home were safe and well maintained. Some of the carpets were torn and not all risks had been assessed and mitigated.

Care workers told us that they felt supported. One care worker told us "This is a lovely place to work. It is a nice home," "The managers are very approachable".

Not all the care workers had received the training, training updates and supervision they needed to deliver care safely.

Some of the records that had been required to be maintained were missing or incomplete and some had not been stored securely.