You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 February 2019

The inspection took place on 9 and 10 January 2019 and was unannounced.

The last inspection took place 11 December 2017, when we found breaches of Regulations relating to safe care and treatment, person centred care and good governance. 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 of ‘Is the service safe?’, ‘Is the service effective?’, ‘Is the service responsive?’ and ‘Is the service well-led?’ to at least good. The provider supplied us with an action plan on 22 January 2018 telling us that they would complete the necessary improvements by July 2018. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider was meeting all the Regulations.

Kolbe 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.

Kolbe House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 25 older people predominantly from the Polish community. There were 22 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

Staff followed the procedure for the recording and safe administration of medicines and people were receiving their medicines safely and as prescribed.

The risks to people’s wellbeing and safety had been assessed and there were detailed guidelines on people’s records about how to mitigate these risks.

There were procedures for safeguarding adults and staff were aware of these. They knew how to respond to medical emergencies or significant changes in a person’s wellbeing.

People were protected from the risk of infection and cross contamination and staff received training in infection control.

The provider ensured that lessons were learnt when things went wrong. There were systems in place to manage incidents and accidents and appropriate action was taken to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

The provider employed enough staff to meet people’s needs safely and there were contingency plans in the event of staff absence. Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that new staff were suitable before they started working for the service.

People’s needs were assessed prior to receiving a service and care plans were developed from the initial assessments. Assessments and care plans were person-centred and contained the necessary information for staff to know how to support people and meet their needs.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff had received training in this. People’s capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment had been assessed. Processes had been followed to ensure that, when necessary, people were deprived of their liberty lawfully.

People’s health and nutritional needs had been assessed, recorded and were being monitored. People gave positive feedback about the food and told us they were offered choice. People had access to healthcare professionals as they needed, and their visits were recorded in people’s care plans.

The provider had consulted relevant guidance and taken steps to improve and develop the environment to meet the needs of people who used the service, in particular those living with the experience of dementia.

People were supported by staff who were appropriately trained, supervised and appraised. The registered manager sought guidance from a range of healthcare professionals and a

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 February 2019

The service was safe.

Staff followed the procedure for the recording and safe administration of medicines and people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

The risks to people�s wellbeing and safety had been assessed and there were detailed guidelines on people�s records about how to mitigate these.

There were procedures for safeguarding adults and staff were aware of these. They knew how to respond to medical emergencies or significant changes in a person�s wellbeing.

People were protected from the risk of infection and cross contamination and staff received training in infection control.

The provider ensured that lessons were learnt when things went wrong. There were systems in place to manage incidents and accidents and appropriate action was taken to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

The provider employed enough staff to meet people�s needs safely and there were contingency plans in the event of staff�s absence. Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that new staff were suitable before they started working for the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 February 2019

The service was effective.

People�s needs were assessed prior to receiving a service and care plans were developed from the initial assessments. Assessments and care plans were person-centred and contained the necessary information for staff to know how to support people and meet their needs.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff had received training in this. Processes had been followed to ensure that, when necessary, people were deprived of their liberty lawfully.

People�s health and nutritional needs had been assessed, recorded and were being monitored. People had access to healthcare professionals as they needed, and their visits were recorded in people�s care plans.

People were supported by staff who were appropriately trained, supervised and appraised.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 February 2019

The service was caring.

People told us they were happy and well cared for. They said that staff treated them with kindness, dignity and respect at all times.

People�s cultural and religious needs were respected and met.

Staff spoke respectfully about the people who used the service and were kind and caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 February 2019

The service was responsive.

There were organised activities and these were person-centred and met the needs of people who used the service, including those living with the experience of dementia.

There was a complaints procedure which the provider followed. People felt confident that if they raised a complaint, they would be listened to and their concerns addressed.

People�s end of life wishes were recorded and respected.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 February 2019

The service was well-led.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and put action plans in place where concerns were identified.

People, staff and relatives told us the registered manager and senior team were approachable and supportive, and there was an open and transparent culture within the home.

There were regular meetings and people and staff were supported to make suggestions about how to make improvements.