• Care Home
  • Care home

Old School House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Thame Road, Longwick, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, HP27 9SF (01844) 343620

Provided and run by:
Mrs Nahida Arif

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 22 August 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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Service and service type

Old School House 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.

The service had a manager registered 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.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

We looked at information we held about the service and what people had told us. We contacted local authority safeguarding teams. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with the registered manager and four staff which included the cook. We spoke with five people and two relatives. We reviewed four people’s care records in detail. We looked at three staff recruitment and training records. We read incident and accident records. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We received feedback from four relatives and made telephone calls to two members of staff. We sought feedback from healthcare professionals who had knowledge of the care home.

Overall inspection

Requires improvement

Updated 22 August 2019

About the service

Old School House is a residential care home providing personal care up to 12 older adults. At the time of the inspection 11 people lived at the home. The care home is located in a period property over two floors, the original building had an extension some years ago. People had access to a lounge, dining area and could freely access a secure garden.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and their relatives told us they were looked after by staff who were kind and caring. Comments included, “My mother's general hygiene and appearance has always been of a high standard and meals are good, wholesome and freshly made” and “My mother has been happy and very well cared for.”

People and their relatives told us the service was well-led. However, we found the registered manager did not always notify us of events they were legally required to. Relatives told us the registered manager was approachable. Comments included I find the staff and management very open and straightforward.” One relative told us “If someone was to ask my recommendations for the old school house, I would not hesitate to recommend it.”

People were supported with the prescribed medicine by staff who had received training to complete this safely. However, we found some records relating to medicine were not in line with national guidelines. Some medicine did not have opening dates recorded and some medicine were returned to the pharmacy when still prescribed. We have made a recommendation about these in the report.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. However, staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not routinely support this practice. The service completed mental capacity assessments on people. However, they were not always based on a specific decision. Two people were subject to restrictive measures and did not have a specific capacity assessment completed for this. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People had care plans in place. Care plan provided guidance for staff on how a person would like to be supported. However, although care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis. We found they did not routinely reflect people’s current needs. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People told us “I could not be looked after better,” “They [Staff] are all pleasant” and “I like it here anyhow, friendly place, food is good.” People’s relatives told us “The staff are always welcoming and friendly and have a genuine care for the residents.”

People were protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments were in place for risk of falls, fire and pressure damage.

People were supported to engage in activities which they enjoyed. The service had forged links with the local community and people looked forward to visits from school children.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 2 July October 2018).

The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found some improvement had been made. However, we found the provider was still in breach of regulations.

This is the second consecutive time the service has been rated requires improvement.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the well-led section of this full report.

Enforcement

We have identified a breach of regulation in relation to information the provider is legally required to inform us about.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.