Updated 22 March 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The Expert by Experience’s area of expertise was old people and dementia care.
Service and service type: The Old Prebendal house is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home accommodates up to 39 people in an adapted building. At the time of the inspection there were 27 people living at the service.
The service had a manager who was registering with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
What we did:
Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service and the service provider. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make. We looked at notifications received from the provider. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. This ensured we were addressing any areas of concern. We received feedback from two social and health care professionals who regularly visited people who received care from the service. We also reviewed the provider’s previous inspection report.
We spoke with nine people and three relatives. We looked at five people’s care records and four medicine administration records (MAR). We spoke with the manager, the deputy manager and seven staff which included, nurses, carers, kitchen staff and activities coordinator. We reviewed a range of records relating to the management of the home. These included six staff files, quality assurance audits, staff communication letters, incident reports, complaints and compliments. In addition, we reviewed feedback from people who had used the service and their relatives.