You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 22 June 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection at Robin Hood House on 22 June 2017. The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 23 people some of whom live with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people living in the home.

At the last inspection on 07 April 2015 we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was 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 told us they were safe and their needs were met by staff. Staff were knowledgeable of people`s needs likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff were aware of safeguarding processes and how to report any concerns to the registered manager or local safeguarding authorities.

Staff and the registered manager were aware of people’s choices and provided people with support in a person centred way.

The provider had a robust recruitment process in place which ensured that qualified and experience staff were employed at the home. Staff received training and support and were aware of their responsibilities when providing care and support to people at the service.

People and their relatives where appropriate were involved in the development and the review of their care and support plans. Support plans were kept electronically and automatically updated. Staff recorded on their hand held devices what support people received daily. People were supported to take decisions about their care and be independent.

People were supported to have sufficient food and drink. People had access to healthcare professionals such as their GP as and when required. People received appropriate support from staff to take their medicines safely.

The registered manager carried out regular audits and surveys to ensure they maintained effective monitoring of the quality of the services they provided.

Inspection carried out on 07 April 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 07 April 2015 and was unannounced. The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 23 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. On the day of the inspection, there were 20 people living in the home.

The service has 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 were protected from avoidable harm or abuse. Risks to individuals’ had been assessed and managed appropriately. The service followed safe recruitment procedures and there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. There were safe systems for the management of people’s medicines and they received their medicines regularly and on time.

People were supported by staff who were skilled and knowledgeable in their roles. Staff were aware of how to support people who lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves and had received training in Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s nutritional needs were met and they were supported to have enough to eat and drink. They were seen by their doctors or other health care professionals when required.

The experiences of people who lived at the care home were positive. They were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was promoted. People were involved in the decisions about their care and support they received.

People had their care needs assessed, reviewed and delivered in a way that mattered to them. They were supported to pursue their social interests and hobbies and to participate in activities provided at the home. There was an effective complaints procedure in place.

There was an open culture and people were encouraged to air their views about the quality of service provision. There were systems in place to seek the views of people, their relatives and other stakeholders. Regular checks and audits relating to the quality of service delivery were carried out.

Inspection carried out on 2 May 2014

During a routine inspection

As the home is small the inspection team was made up of one inspector. We set out to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and looking at records.

We found that the home was meeting all areas.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

Is the service caring?

We found that the people were cared for in relaxed, comfortable environment by caring staff. We observed care and saw that there were sufficient staff on duty to spend one to one time with the people. We saw affection between the staff and the people. There was a homely atmosphere, with the people at the centre of all activities.

Is the service responsive?

We were told by the people who lived in the home that ‘the staff will do anything for you as soon as you ask’. We saw that staff were vigilant at all times and were ready to respond to the wishes and needs of the people. People who were confined to bed or had chosen to stay in their own rooms had regular visits from the staff to ensure they were comfortable and staff told us that they like to have a chat with the person to ensure they were well and see if they needed anything. We were told that calls for assistance were responded to in a timely manner.

Is the service safe?

We saw that there was sufficient, appropriately recruited staff to meet the needs and wishes of the people. We saw that staff were aware of risk management and the balance between promoting independence and keeping people safe. We saw that equipment used to keep people safe had been serviced appropriately. Staff had been trained to recognise and respond to signs and allegations of abuse.

Is the service effective?

We looked at the care plans of four people and found that people or their representative had been involved in establishing what care the person needed and how they wanted it delivered. We saw that care plans gave detailed directions to staff to ensure the care they gave was effective. We saw that people who had long periods of inaction were protected from the risk of pressure areas. People had access to the local community and local shops and where necessary were accompanied by staff.

Is the service well led?

The home was managed in the best interests of the people who live there. Staff told us that the manager was available to them should they need assistance. The manager and the assistant manager supervised the staff while they are delivering care and if there were issues they were addressed before they became a problem. Staff were well trained in all aspects of care delivery.

Staff were supported to deliver care in a relaxed manner and they told us that the manager and assistant manager were available and were very easy to talk to if they had any kind of a problem. All of the staff we spoke with were happy with the care delivery in the home and were very happy working there. There was a very low turnover of staff within the home. This meant that the staff knew the people’s needs and wishes and were able to create a homely atmosphere in the home suited to the people who lived there.

Inspection carried out on 1 May 2013

During a routine inspection

Most of the people who lived at Robin Hood House were unable to tell us about their experiences of living there as they had a dementia that effected their communication skills. Those who could told us that they were happy there and that the staff were very good and kind.

We observed care and saw that the people were very relaxed and that there was good interaction between the staff and the people who lived at Robin Hood House. We saw that the people enjoyed the company of staff and that there was affection and kindness in their interactions. On our arrival at the home we saw that people were in the garden enjoying the sunshine and we could hear the people laughing and engaging in general ‘banter’ with the staff.

We saw that the people's dignity, independence and health had been promoted at all times. An example of this was, one resident who helped out at the home was rewarded for their efforts in a manner that had been agreed.

Food was freshly prepared and the people said that their lunch was very good. The home had systems in place that ensured all aspects of the people’s care had been risk assessed and reviewed regularly.

We saw from how the staff cared for the people that they understood how the person’s dementia affected them and we saw that the staff were able to understand the person’s needs. All aspects of the running of the home had been audited and where there was a problem an action plan had been put in place and implemented to address the issues.

Inspection carried out on 11 May 2012

During a routine inspection

A high proportion of the people who live in the home were unable to talk to us. Those who did told us that they were happy with the service and that the staff were lovely.

We reviewed the comments from the relatives of the people who use the service. These accounts included ‘your staff are not carers they are family and friends’, thank you for making us feel welcome at all times’, ‘ we shall miss you all staff and residents’, ‘ your are all superstars and we really appreciate everything you do’.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)