You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

This inspection took place on 12 and 13 June 2017 and was unannounced.

St David’s Home provides nursing care and support for up to 76 people. The home has a separate rehabilitation unit with seven places for people who are supported to return home or move to other accommodation.

The home had a registered manager who has been in post since February 2008. 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.

The provider worked toward ensuring there were sufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs. The provider had robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure only suitable staff were appointed to work with people who used the service.

The home had policies and procedures to help keep people safe from harm and abuse. People using the service and their relatives told us that they felt protected and safe.

The provider had assessed and reviewed risks to the health and wellbeing of people who used the service. There were robust processes in place for the reporting of incidents and accidents and there were various systems in place to ensure people lived in a clean, safe and well-maintained environment.

The provider had arrangements to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal of their work. People who used the service, their family members and external professionals thought the staff were well trained and had the skills they needed to care for them. Staff communicated well about changes to people’s needs to ensure that these needs were met and people were cared for appropriately and in an effective way.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us staff sought their consent before providing care and support to them.

People were supported in maintaining a nutritious and balanced diet and had access to external health professionals if required.

People who used the service and their family members told us the staff were kind, caring, polite and helpful. The interactions between people and staff were positive and caring. People were not rushed, they smiled a lot and appeared relaxed and comfortable.

Staff empowered people to be independent and encouraged them to make choices about their care and support. People could choose if they received personal care from a female or male worker.

People told us they received care that was responsive to their needs and preferences and they were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. Staff worked with people in a person centred way and we saw examples of how their approach had made a difference to people's lives.

The home had a dedicated team of three activity coordinators who engaged people in meaningful, appropriate and purposeful activities throughout the day. People had access to a variety of innovative aids to ensure they could live comfortable and meaningful lives. Staff encouraged people to take part in a variety of events within the local community and beyond it.

The provider had organised regular meetings for people using the service and their relatives to discuss the running of the home. The provider had a complaints policy and people and their family members knew about it.

People knew the registered manager and they complimented them. People and their relatives thought the home was very well managed and the management team was approachable and proactive in resolving any issues and concerns brought by people and their relatives.

Staff worked well together as a team and they knew what was expected from them. The staff had been given the opportunity for continuous professional development and career progression

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs.

People using the service and their relatives told us that the service protected them from harm and abuse and they felt safe with staff that supported them.

The provider had assessed and reviewed risks to the health and wellbeing of people who used the service.

There were robust processes in place for the reporting of incidents and accidents and there were various systems in place to ensure people lived in a safe environment.

The provider had arrangements to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and training they needed to support people effectively.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal of their work.

Staff communicated effectively about people’s changing needs to ensure that these needs were met and people were cared for in an effective way.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Staff sought people’s consent before offering care and support.

People were given support to meet their health care and nutritional needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service and their family members told us the staff were kind, caring, polite and helpful.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care and people confirmed this.

Staff empowered people to be independent and encouraged them to make choices about their care and support.

People could choose to be supported by a female or male staff member.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People took part in the planning and reviewing of their care and support.

People had access to meaningful, appropriate and purposeful activities at the home. Staff encouraged people to take part in a variety of events within the local community and beyond it.

There was a variety of innovative aids available at the home to support people in meeting their care, health and social needs.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people and their relatives knew about it.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

People knew the registered manager and complimented them.

Staff worked well together as a team and they knew what was expected from them.

The management team was approachable and proactive in resolving issues and concerns brought by staff, people and their relatives.

The provider promoted continuous professional development and career progression amongst staff employed at the home.

The service had robust quality assurance systems in place to ensure the continuous high quality of care provision.

External health professionals gave positive feedback about staff and the management team at the home.