We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cornwell House, Beehive Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cornwell House, Beehive Care, you can give feedback on this service.
The Abbeyfield Ferring Society, known as Cornwell House, is a care home that provides personal care for up to 20 older people. At the time of the inspection, there were 19 people living at the service. We visited the service on 25 April 2019 and received information from the service up until 30 April 2019.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they felt safe, they were relaxed and familiar with the staff and each other. People were cared for by a consistent and compassionate staff team who had received appropriate training to carry out their roles.
People’s dietary needs and preferences were assessed and where needed, people received support to eat and drink. Mealtimes were a social occasion.
People were supported to access health care services and they received assistance to take their medicines as prescribed.
People received care that was compassionate, respectful and responsive to their individual needs. Staff understood people’s individual needs and how to provide the care and support they needed.
Care plans were being transferred to an electronic system. They did not contain all the information that staff knew about people. The registered manager had identified this and had a plan to improve record keeping.
People and their relatives knew how to complain and were confident that they were listened to.
One person was receiving end of life care at the time of our inspection visit. The staff were proud of the care they had provided at the end of people’s lives.
The registered manager and staff shared a clear vision about the quality of care and service they aimed to provide. They worked in partnership with other organisations and the local community to make continuous improvements and develop best practice.
More information is in detailed findings below.
Rating at last inspection:
The last inspection took place in September 2016. The overall rating was Good (report published in October 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating from the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.
Follow up:
We will monitor information received about the service to inform the assessment of the risk profile of the service and to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.
The Abbeyfield Ferring Society residential care home, also known as Cornwell House, is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 20 older people with a variety of needs. At the time of our inspection, 20 people were accommodated at the home, including one person who was receiving respite care. Cornwell House is situated in Ferring, a village approximately three miles to the west of Worthing. The home is detached with an accessible garden and summer house to the rear of the property. Communal areas include a large lounge downstairs, and a smaller upstairs lounge, dining room and conservatory. All rooms have en-suite facilities comprising a toilet and washbasin. Upstairs accommodation is accessible via a lift.
A registered manager was 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 told us they felt safe living at the home and that they were protected from abuse or harm by trained staff. Risks to people were identified, assessed and managed safely and guidance provided to staff on mitigating people’s risks. Risk assessments were reviewed monthly or more frequently if an accident or incident sustained by a person required earlier review. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment practices were in place. Generally, people’s medicines were managed safely.
Staff had been trained in a range of areas, usually by the registered manager, who had appropriate training qualifications. New staff studied for the Care Certificate, a universally recognised qualification. Staff had regular supervision meetings with the registered manager which included observations of their work and spot checks. Team meetings were held twice a year. Staff had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and put this into practice. People were involved in decisions relating to their care and had signed consent forms. People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy diet. They spoke positively about the menu choices on offer. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services. People were encouraged to personalise their rooms.
People were cared for and supported by kind, friendly staff who knew them well. People spoke highly of the care staff and we observed staff engaged with people in a warm and empathic way. People were encouraged to express their views and to be involved in making decisions about their care. They told us they were treated with dignity and respect by staff. Some people had made decisions about their end of life care.
A range of activities was on offer to people and these reflected people’s interests which had been identified through a questionnaire sent out in January 2016. Minibus outings were organised each month and people were also supported by staff to access the gardens surrounding the home and out into the community, for example, a visit to the shops or down to the beach. Care plans provided comprehensive, detailed information about people and guidance to staff on how they wished to be cared for. Complaints were managed in line with the provider’s policy.
People were actively involved in developing the service through residents’ meetings which were held three or four times a year and through formal questionnaires. Their relatives were also involved and invited to residents’ meetings. Feedback was obtained from relatives through annual questionnaires which asked for their views about the quality of care delivery, staff and management and about the premises. Overall, feedback was very positive. Staff were also asked for their views about the home and they told us they felt they were listened to by the registered manager. Staff felt the home was well managed and led effectively. The quality of care delivery was measured through a robust system of audits and checks which the registered manager had implemented. Any areas for improvement were identified and acted upon.
During our visit we spoke to two people who used the service and four members of staff. People told us that they were involved in all aspects of their care and that they were able to make decisions regarding this. We were told by a person that ' that they always listen to what I want and treat me with respect. They are all really caring'.
People had upto date care plans and risk assessments that were regularly reviewed and that met their support needs.
We found that staff received annual safeguarding training and had a good understanding of their responsibilities regarding this.
We found that the provider had an adequate number of skilled staff in order to provide individualised care. All staff received regular training and were well supported. We saw that staff had appropriate qualifications and experience in order to meet the care needs of the people.
The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.
People had care plans and risk assessments in place that met their support needs.
We found staff had received training in safeguarding people from abuse. Staff we spoke with knew how to identify and report concerns.
We looked at the recruitment process and found all checks had been carried out. We saw that staff had appropriate qualifications and experience.
The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service people received.