You are here

Rushymead Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The inspection of Rushymead Residential Care Home took place on 22 and 23 February 2018 and was unannounced. The previous inspection carried out on 30 and 31 January 2017 found a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider did not have robust quality assurance systems in place to effectively monitor the safety and quality of people’s care. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions safe, effective and well led to at least good We found during this inspection the provider had made improvements and was now meeting the regulation.

Rushymead Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’. 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.

Rushymead Residential Care Home accommodates 28 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people using the service. The service accommodates people across three separate units, each of which have separate adapted facilities. All of the units specialises in providing care to people living with dementia. Rushymead Residential Care Home stands in several acres of grounds and has a terraced area for people to sit on warm days.

The service requires a registered manager to manage 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. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

We received positive comments from people we spoke with in relation to how well cared for people felt. One person commented on how they felt supported and listened to. Relatives we spoke with told us their family member was safe and well looked after. For example, “I know she is safe. I can’t fault them” and “No worries mum is well cared for.”

Staff showed kindness and compassion for people they supported. We observed positive engagement between staff and people throughout our visit.

Staff undertook training in relation to safeguarding people at risk. Staff told us they knew what to do if they suspected abuse of any kind. We saw contact details of the local safeguarding authority displayed within the premises.

Risk assessments were in place for people identified at risk. We saw these were current and updated as required. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were in place in the event of an emergency.

Medicines were managed safely and effectively. People received their medicines as prescribed by the GP.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. The service used agency staff when required. We were told that the same agency staff were used where possible.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured only suitable staff were employed. Staff files we saw contained relevant documentation.

People told us the food was good and they had a choice of menu. People’s nutritional needs were identified and monitored. The chef had a list of people’s dietary requirements where they required a specific diet.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. A comments box was located in the main reception area for anyone wishing to make a suggestion. In addition a ‘make a wish’ tree was available for anyone to leave suggestions or comments.

Staff spoke positively about the management structure of the service. They told us they would always speak to the manager or team leader if they had any concerns. Staff received regular supervisions where they could discuss their progress and feedback about any

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was not always safe.

Staff did not always ensure they were available at all times.

Some risk assessment charts were not completed to show what support had taken place.

People and relatives told us they were happy and felt safe living at the service

Effective

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was effective.

People had access to appropriate healthcare professionals to receive additional support.

Staff had regular supervisions and training they told us they felt supported.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was caring.

People received kind and compassionate care from staff.

People and their relatives were involved in the care planning process.

People�s dignity was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint.

People had access to activities to avoid social isolation.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was well led.

Audits were effective and enabled the service to improve.

Conditions of registration were met by the service.

The culture of the service was open and transparent.