You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The unannounced inspection took place on 29 March and 5 April 2017. We last inspected the Calvert Trust Kielder in May 2016. At that inspection we found the service was in breach of Regulation 12 in connection with the safe management of medicines.

The provider sent us an action plan to show us how they were going to address the concerns we had found and we returned to check they now met all of the regulations. We also visited to follow up on a safeguarding concern which had been raised although the investigation was not yet complete. We will report on this in due course.

We found that the provider had improved their medicines procedures and were now meeting Regulation 12. Medicines were managed safely. Only trained staff administered medicines. People confirmed they received their medicines at the correct time.

The Calvert Trust Kielder complex is set up to provide residential respite care with the main focus being on adventure activities for up to 20 people with various healthcare needs. At the time of our inspection there were six people who had a range of physical and learning disabilities using the service.

The service is based in the Kielder forest area with people staying for one or two weeks, with some choosing to stay longer. The service is used by people from all areas of the country and because the service is part of a larger complex, accommodation and activities is extended to other people and their families on the same site including those who are both able bodied and those less so.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 said they received good care from kind, caring and considerate staff. They also confirmed they felt safe while visiting and staying at the service. Relatives and staff also told us the service was safe for people to stay at.

Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns and we found the provider had dealt with previous safeguarding concerns appropriately.

Where potential risks had been identified an assessment had been completed. The benefits of people taking risks and the measures needed to keep them safe were considered as part of the assessment.

Accidents and incidents were logged and investigated with appropriate action taken to help keep people safe. Health and safety checks were completed and procedures were in place to deal with emergency situations.

We found there were sufficient staff deployed to provide people’s care in a timely manner. People, relatives and staff felt staffing levels were appropriate. There were effective recruitment checks in place to help ensure staff were suitable to be employed at the service. Staff received the support and training they required and records confirmed training, supervisions and appraisals were up to date.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice and were currently being reviewed.

People gave positive feedback about the meals and refreshments available to them. We saw people received the support they needed with eating and drinking.

The service was adapted to suit the needs of people with a range of disabilities, with an emphasis on enabling people to participate in the wide range of outdoor and indoor activities by providing specialist assistance and equipment.

People’s needs were assessed to enable personalised care plans to be developed. Care records contained details of their preferences. Care plans were in the process of being fully reviewed to keep them up to date.

Meetings were held so that people could share t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was safe.

People, their relatives and care staff told us the service was safe.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people�s needs. The provider had effective recruitment checks in place.

Care staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns.

Medicines were managed appropriately and safely and health and safety checks were carried out and procedures were in place to deal with emergency situations.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was effective.

Care staff said they received the training and support they needed. Records confirmed supervisions, appraisals and training were up to date.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received support to meet their nutritional and health care needs.

The service was adapted to meet the needs of a wide range of people with varying disabilities.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was caring.

People told us they were well cared for and told us staff were kind, considerate and caring.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported to them to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s needs had been assessed and personalised care plans developed, with a full review of documentation underway.

There was an extensive range of activities for people to participate in.

People could give their views about their care through attending welcome meetings and completing surveys.

People knew how to complain and complaints were investigated in line with the provider�s complaints procedure

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was well led.

The service had an experienced registered manager and head of care.

People, relatives and staff told us the service appeared well led and the registered manager and head of care were approachable.

The service had a friendly and welcoming atmosphere.

A range of audits were carried out to check on the quality of people�s care.