Background to this inspection
Updated
12 August 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on the 11 July 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and a specialist advisor whose specialism was adult care.
Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give us key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the completed PIR, previous inspection reports and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about in law.
We spoke with ten people, three relatives, six care staff, the administrator, the chef, the registered manager and one healthcare professional. We reviewed ten people’s care files, six staff records and records relating to the management of the service.
We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
Updated
12 August 2016
This inspection took place on 11 July 2016. It was an unannounced inspection.
St Johns Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 38 older people who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 32 people living at the service.
The service had 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 not always protected from risks associated with their care and the environment. In that areas of the home that should have been secured were left unsecured and unattended and people’s thickeners were not stored safely.
People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff administering medicines checked each person’s identity and explained what was happening before giving people their medicine. However medicine records and records relating to people’s care were not always completed accurately.
People and staff told us there were not sufficient staff deployed in the home. However during our inspection we could find no evidence to suggest that people’s care needs were not being met as a result of insufficient staffing.
The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role. There was a whistleblowing policy in place that was available to staff around the home. Staff knew how to raise concerns.
People told us they were safe. People were supported by staff who could explain what constitutes abuse and what to do in the event of suspecting abuse. Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities.
People’s care plans contained risk assessments which included risks associated with moving and handling, falls prevention and pressure damage. Where risks were identified plans were in place to identify how risks would be managed. Regular audits were conducted to monitor the quality of service.
Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves.
People were supported to maintain good health. People had sufficient to eat and drink and were complimentary about the meals in the service. The service had an activities coordinator and people were offered a wide range of meaningful activities.
The service sought people’s views and opinions and acted upon them. People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. We saw complaints were dealt with in a compassionate and timely fashion.
Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff had access to effective supervision. Staff and the registered manager shared the visions and values of the service and these were embedded within service delivery.