You are here

Stafford House Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 October 2018

During a routine inspection

Stafford House provides accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for up to 12 people. The home is situated on Cleveleys promenade close to the town centre. It comprises of three floors with lift access. There is a lounge and separate dining area. Bathroom and toilet facilities are situated on all floors. There were six people living at Stafford House at the time of our inspection.

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service Good. We found the registered provider continued to provide a good standard of care to people who lived at the home.

Why the service is rated Good

At this inspection we found the registered provider had systems to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and took action as required.

The service carefully monitored and analysed such events to learn from them and improve the service.

Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices. The registered provider had reported incidents to the Care Quality Commission when required.

People told us staff were caring and respectful towards them. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of providing high standards of care and enabled people to lead meaningful lives.

We found there were sufficient numbers of staff during our inspection visit. They were effectively deployed, trained and able to deliver care in a compassionate and patient manner. One relative commented, “There is always staff available.”

Staff we spoke with confirmed they did not commence in post until the management team completed relevant checks. We checked staff records and noted employees received induction and training appropriate to their roles.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. Care records showed they were reviewed and any changes had been recorded.

We looked around the building and saw evidence of ongoing refurbishment. The home was clean and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection.

Medication records provided staff with a good understanding about specific support needs of each person who lived at Stafford House Residential Care Home.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us they had plenty of food and drink with the option of additional snacks and drinks between meals.

We observed only positive interactions between staff and people who lived Stafford House Residential Care Home. We observed humour used to foster positive relationships. There was a culture of promoting dignity and respect towards people. We saw staff spent time with people as they completed routine tasks.

There was a complaints procedure which was made available to people and visible within the home. People we spoke with, and visiting relatives, told us they were happy and had no complaints.

The management team used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits, staff meetings and daily discussions with people who lived at the home to seek their views about the service provided.

People were supported with activities and social interaction but the registered provider also respected people’s right to not part

Inspection carried out on 23 January 2017

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 15 March 2016. A breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to unsafe recruitment procedures that potentially placed people who lived at the home at risk. We found application forms were incomplete and Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS) had not been obtained before staff commenced their employment.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for (Stafford House Residential Care Home) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Stafford House residential Care Home provides accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for up to 12 people. The home is situated on Cleveleys promenade close to the town centre. It comprises of three floors with lift access. There is a lounge and separate dining area. Bathroom and toilet facilities are situated on all floors. At the time of our inspection visit, nine people lived at the home.

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.

At our focused inspection on the 23 and 24 January 2017. We visited on the second day to meet with a newly employed member of staff. We found improvements had been made since our last inspection. We looked at two recruitment files related to staff that had commenced employment since our last inspection. We looked at one recruitment file of a staff member who was scheduled to start work at Stafford House the day after our inspection visit. We noted people’s start dates with Stafford House followed the date of issue of their Disclosure and Barring Check (DBS). We spoke with one staff member who had started since our last inspection. They stated they had to wait for their DBS check to be returned before the provider gave them a start date.

Inspection carried out on 15 March 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection visit took place on the 15 March 2016 and was unannounced

Stafford House provides accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for up to 12 people. The home is situated on Cleveleys promenade close to the town centre. It comprises of three floors with lift access. There is a lounge and separate dining area. Bathroom and toilet facilities are situated on all floors. At the time of our inspection visit there were eight people who lived at the home.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the

Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

At the last inspection on 08 April 2014 we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations inspected.

We found recruitment procedures the service had in place were unsafe. This was because the registered manager/owner had employed people before appropriate checks had been completed. These checks were required to ensure staff working at the home were safe to work with vulnerable people. This was a breach of Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices.

Care records of people who lived at the home were person centred, organised and identified support people required. Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided

We observed people’s medicines administered at breakfast time and at lunch time. They were dispensed in a safe manner and people received their medicines on time. Staff had received related training to ensure medicines were administered correctly by trained personnel.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. On the day of our inspection visit we saw one person was supported by a staff member to attend a medical appointment.

Staff had received training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required. We observed staff could undertake tasks supporting people without feeling rushed. On the day of our visit one to one support was offered to a person who required to attend a medical appointment. This did not have an impact of staffing availability to support the remaining people at the home.

The registered manager/owner understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

People who lived at the home told us they were happy with the quality and choice of meals available to them. Comments included, “The food is very nice and if you don’t like it you can choose what you want instead.”

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how people should be treated in terms of respect and supporting people with dignity. We witnessed examples of this during our inspection. For example staff knocked on doors before entering a person’s bedroom.

Stafford House had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home. People we spoke with told us they were comfortabl

Inspection carried out on 8 April 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was led by one inspector. Information we gathered during the inspection helped 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 using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed every two months. People we spoke with told us they were very happy living in the home. We received many positive comments from people. One person told us, “If you want something she is always there.”

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed, monitored and reviewed. People and their relatives were supported to be involved in their plans of care. There was regular contact with local GP`s, district nurse team, pharmacist and other health care professionals.

Is the service caring?

We observed people were supported by kind and caring staff. People living in the home completed surveys. This meant should any shortfalls or concerns be raised they could be identified and addressed. The provider had not received any negative feedback from the surveys.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with told us the home was responsive when meeting people`s health care needs. The provider had arrangements in place for unseen emergencies. People were regularly weighed to monitor for signs of ill health. The cook had undertaken a range of recent training including food and nutrition. Our discussions with staff showed us the home had systems in place to protect people from the risks of inadequate food and nutrition.

Is the service well-led?

The home worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. The provider completed a range of quality audits to monitor and review the quality of the services they provided within the home. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.