You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 September 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Perran Bay Care Home on 9 August 2018. Perran Bay is a care home which provides care and support for up to 42 predominantly older people. At the time of this inspection there were 34 people living at the service. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is on three floors with access to the upper floors via stairs, chair lift or a passenger lift. Some rooms have en-suite facilities and there are shared bathrooms, shower facilities and toilets. Shared living areas include two lounges, an open plan dining room with seating areas, garden and patio seating area at the front and rear of the service.

There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. 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.

As part of this comprehensive inspection we checked to see if the provider had made the required improvements identified at the inspection of 24 April 2017. In April 2017 we found some people did not have a current accurate accessible care plan or risk assessment in place to guide and direct staff on how to meet people’s needs. Some specific guidance in people’s care plans was not being followed by staff. Some people had been assessed as being at risk from pressure damage to their skin and the service had provided pressure relieving mattresses for them. However, the correct settings for these mattresses were not being effectively monitored. The risk associated with accidents and incidents were not robustly managed. The processes for managing medicines were not robust. The management team were not able to easily access electronically held information relating to people’s care needs. Quality assurance systems were not satisfactory. The service was not regularly auditing areas such as care plans and medicines management therefore had not identified the areas of concern found at this inspection.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made in all the areas identified at the previous inspection. This meant the service had met all the outstanding legal requirements from the last inspection and is now rated as Good.

Since the last inspection the registered manager had ensured all care plans had been reviewed and reflected the current needs of people using the service. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed with evidence of changes in people’s needs and how staff should respond to them.

The electronic care planning system was fully operational and all staff were using this system effectively. Where people’s risks involved the need for pressure relieving mattresses they were being checked regularly to ensure they were accurate.

Auditing procedures took account of all areas of operation within the service to ensure systems were effective. Accidents and incidents were being reported and recorded as they occurred. These were audited to ensure any trends or patterns were evident and the service learned from them to make changes to mitigate risks to people.

Medicine procedures had been reviewed with changes made to some of the processes. For example, consent and risk assessment for people choosing to self-administer their medicines. Medicine audits were identifying where errors had occurred and stock control of medicines had been reviewed. There were no medicines or creams which were out of date. This meant the service was meeting the requirements of regulations.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs because staff had the infor

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was safe. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Staff completed a thorough recruitment process to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge. Staff knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse.

People were supported with their medicines in a safe way by staff who had been appropriately trained. Risks were identified and appropriately managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 September 2018

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 September 2018

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was responsive. People received personalised care and support which was responsive to their changing needs.

Care plans gave direction and guidance for staff to follow to meet people’s needs and wishes.

Staff supported people to take part in a wide range of activities.

People and their families told us if they had a complaint they would be happy to speak with the registered manager and were confident they would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 September 2018

The management provided staff with appropriate leadership and support. There was a positive culture within the staff team with an emphasis on providing a good service for people.

People and their families told us the management were approachable and they were included in decisions about the running of the service.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.