You are here

Archived: Russell Churcher Court Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 January 2017

This inspection took place on 14 November 2016 and was unannounced.

Russell Churcher is a care home that does not provide nursing. It provides support for up to 44 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 44 people living at the home. Accommodation is over two floors and lifts were available.

A registered manager was 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.

Medicines were not managed safely as records did not show how to administer covert medicines and records did not always reflect how much medicines had been given.

People’s care had been appropriately assessed however, plans had not consistently been developed to ensure that staff met people’s needs consistently and reduced and identified risks.

People confirmed they felt safe and that staff involved them in making decisions and staff knew people well.

Observation demonstrated people’s consent was sought before staff provided care.

People described staff as lovely and caring. Staff treated people with respect and recognised the importance of promoting independence, dignity and privacy.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding people at risk. They were confident any concerns raised would be acted upon by management and knew what action to take if they were not. However, they were unsure about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager told us that they had yet to make ten DoLS assessments for people where it was felt they were at risk of being deprived of their liberty. We have asked that we be informed on when they have made their assessments.

Recruitment checks were carried out and the provider ensured there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff received an induction when they first started work which helped them to understand their roles and responsibilities. They felt supported through supervision and training.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and these were managed in line with the provider’s policy. Systems were in place to gather people’s views and assess and monitor the quality of the service. Records were not appropriately maintained in a number of areas including care plans and risk assessments.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was not always safe.

Identified risks associated with people�s care were not always assessed and plans developed to mitigate such risks.

Staff had a good understand of safeguarding. They knew what to look for and how to report both internally and externally.

Recruitment processes ensured staff were safe to work with people at risk and the provider ensured appropriate staffing levels to meet people�s needs.

Medicines were not managed safely.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was not always effective.

Staff were well supported to understand their roles and responsibilities thorough effective supervision and training.

Whilst staff demonstrated they involved people in making decisions and respected the decisions they made, they did not have a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Mental capacity assessments were not available and DoLS had not been requested when appropriate.

People�s nutritional needs were met and they had access to healthcare professionals when they required this.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect.

They demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of promoting independence, dignity and respect.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was not always responsive.

Staff knew people well and the planning of care was personalised but did not always reflect people�s needs.

A complaints procedure was in place and people knew how to use this. Where concerns had been raised the registered manager had implemented the complaints procedure and people had been satisfied with the outcome.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was not always well led.

People�s records were not accurate and complete and did not reflect their needs.

Systems were in place which monitored the service and gathered people�s feedback. However, there were issues with care plans and medicines that had not been picked up as the audit for medicines took place monthly.

The manager was visible and staff were encouraged to share concerns and make suggestions.