You are here

Orton Manor Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

This inspection took place on 15 August 2017 and was unannounced.

Orton Manor is one of three homes owned by a small provider and provides accommodation, personal and nursing care for up to 40 older people living with physical health conditions or dementia. The home has two floors, each with a communal lounge and dining area. At the time of the inspection 36 people lived at the home. Orton Manor was last inspected by us in September 2016, and we awarded the home a rating of Requires Improvement.

The home had a ‘registered manager’. 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.

People’s medicines were not always administered as prescribed, and medicines records did not always demonstrate that medicines were administered consistently. Some prescribed creams were being administered by care staff who had not been trained to do so. Audits designed to check medicines practice was safe and in line with best practice had not identified some of the issues we found.

Risk assessments were not always in place where risk had been identified. Risk assessments did not always give staff the information they needed to manage risks safely and consistently.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them, and we saw people were comfortable with staff. Staff received training in how to safeguard people and understood what action they should take in order to protect people from abuse. The provider ensured staff followed safeguarding policies and procedures.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs effectively. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work, to ensure their suitability to support people. Staff told us they had not been able to work until these checks had been completed.

People were asked for their consent before staff supported them. Where people lacked capacity to make particular decisions, this had been assessed to ensure people were protected. Where people lacked capacity and had been deprived of their liberty to keep them safe, the provider ensured they applied to the relevant authority to ensure this was done lawfully.

People and relatives told us staff were respectful and treated people with dignity. We observed this in interactions between people, and records confirmed how people’s privacy and dignity was maintained. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives. For example, they were supported to maintain any activities, interests and relationships that were important to them.

People had access to health professionals when needed and care records showed support provided was in line with what had been recommended. People’s care records were written in a way which helped staff to deliver personalised care and gave staff information about people’s communication needs, their likes, dislikes and preferences. People were involved in how their care and support was delivered.

People and relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager. They felt these would be listened to and responded to effectively and in a timely way. People and staff told us the management team were approachable and responsive to their ideas and suggestions. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the support provided, and the provider was developing ways to ensure people were at the centre of helping the service to develop.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

Medicines were not always administered by trained staff and in line with prescribing instructions. Audits designed to check medicines management were not effective and had not identified the concerns we found. Risk assessments were not always in place where required, and did not always give staff the information they needed to support people safely. Staff knew what action to take to safeguard people from the risk of abuse, and the provider had measures in place to ensure they recruited people who were suitable to work in the home. There were enough staff to meet people�s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff that were competent and trained to meet their needs effectively. People were offered a choice of meals and drinks that met their dietary needs, and where they were at risk, their food and fluid intake was recorded and action taken where required. People received timely support from appropriate health care professionals. Where people lacked capacity to make day to day decisions, this was assessed and documented. Staff understood the need to obtain consent from people in relation to how their needs should be met. DoLS applications had been made as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated as individuals and were supported with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff were patient and attentive to people�s individual needs and showed respect for people�s privacy. People were supported to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care and support which had been planned with their involvement and which was regularly reviewed. Staff responded to people quickly and effectively on a day to day basis, and as people�s needs changed. People were supported to maintain hobbies, activities and interests. People knew how to raise complaints and were supported to do so.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was well led.

People and staff felt able to approach the management team and felt they were listened to when they did so. Staff felt well supported in their roles and there was a culture of openness. There were systems in place for the provider to assure themselves of the quality of service being provided, and the provider was exploring ways to ensure people and their relatives gave feedback so the service could improve.