You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

Craven Nursing Home is situated in a semi-rural setting on the outskirts of the market town of Skipton. The home is registered to provide nursing care and accommodation for up to 68 people. The home is separated into three units. One of these units cares specifically for people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 54 people at the service.

This comprehensive inspection took place over two days. 24 February 2017 was unannounced and 9 March 2017 was announced. At the last inspection in December 2014 the service was rated as Good.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 at the service. Staff were confident about how to protect people from harm and what they would do if they had any safeguarding concerns. There were appropriate systems in place to make sure that people were supported to take medicines safely and as prescribed. Risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to keep risks to a minimum.

There were a sufficient number of staff on duty to make sure people’s needs were met. Recruitment procedures made sure that staff had the required skills and were of suitable character and background.

Staff were supported by a comprehensive training programme and supervisions to help them carry out their roles effectively. Staff were led by an open and accessible management team.

The manager and staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). 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.

People were provided with sufficient amounts of food and drink. Where people required support with eating or drinking, this was appropriately provided, taking into account people’s likes and dislikes.

People told us that staff were caring and that their privacy and dignity were respected. Care plans showed that individual preferences were taken into account, although the information about this in care plans sometimes lacked detail. Care plans gave directions to staff about the support people required to have their needs met. People were supported to maintain their health and had access to health services if needed.

People received good care at the end of their lives. Staff were well trained in this area and sensitive to the needs of people, their friends and relatives.

People’s needs were regularly reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the support people received. People had opportunities to make comments about the service and how it could be improved.

The registered manager had good oversight of the service and there was a clear ethos of care. The registered manager had made improvements at the service since they started in post. There were systems in place to look at the quality of the service provided and action was taken where shortfalls were identified.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was safe.

There was safe management of medicines which protected people against the associated risks.

Staff used safeguarding procedures in order to protect people from harm.

Risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to keep risks to a minimum.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment procedures made sure that staff were of suitable character and background.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills necessary to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Relevant legislative requirements were followed where people’s freedom of movement was restricted.

People were supported to maintain good health and were supported to access relevant services such as a doctor or other professionals as needed.

People were provided with sufficient amounts of freshly cooked food and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was caring.

People told us that they were looked after by caring staff.

People were treated with dignity and respect whilst being supported with personal care.

People, and their relatives if necessary, were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

People at their end of life were provided with good support which was sensitive to their needs and those of their loved ones.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care which was responsive to their needs. Care and support plans were up to date, regularly reviewed and reflected people’s current needs and preferences.

People could take part in a range of activities.

People knew how to make a complaint or compliment about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 May 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager had good oversight of the service and had plans in place to make improvements.

There was a positive, caring culture at the service.

There were systems in place to look at the quality of the service provided and action was taken where shortfalls were identified.

There were opportunities for people to feed back their views about the service.