You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 17 February 2017 and we returned on 21 February 2017 to give feedback and look at some of the documents we had not seen on the first day of inspection.

Solway House is an older property situated in a residential part of Maryport. The home is near to all the amenities of the town and has views of the harbour and the Solway. The home has been suitably adapted and extended to provide a home for up to 18 older adults and for people living with dementia or other mental health disorders. Accommodation is in single rooms and there are suitable shared areas. The home has a pleasant garden for residents use.

The registered manager for Solway House had retired in October 2016 and the provider had appointed a new manager who was beginning the process of registration. 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 registered provider was very much in evidence in the home and had been managing the service during this interim period. She was helped in this task by an assistant manager who knew the service and the people living there very well. The registered provider also had another assistant manager who was supporting the systems building in the home.

We last inspected in October 2015 when we rated the service as requires improvement. We had judged that the location was in breach of regulations related to safe care and treatment, safeguarding, good governance, staffing, fit and proper persons employed and person centred care. The provider had also not always informed us of incidents in the home. We received an action plan from the provider shortly after the report was published and we judged that suitable action was being taken. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the previous report which can be found by going to http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-109788014.

At this inspection we judged that all of the breaches had been met. We saw that the registered provider had put in time and resources to deal with the previous issues.

The registered provider and her team understood how to protect vulnerable adults from harm and abuse. Staff had received suitable training and could talk to us about how they would identify any issues and how they would report them appropriately. Risk assessments and risk management plans had been improved on and these now supported people well. Good arrangements were now in place to ensure that new members of staff had been suitably vetted and that they were the right kind of people to work with vulnerable adults. Any accidents or incidents had been reported to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and suitable action taken to lessen the risk of further issues.

The home had increased the staffing levels after the last inspection and the provider and her management team were keeping rosters under review as people's dependency changed. Staff were suitably inducted, trained and developed to give the best support possible.

Medicines were appropriately managed in the service with people having reviews of their medicines on a regular basis. People in the home saw their GP and health specialists whenever necessary. The team made sure that strong medicines and any sedation were kept under review with the local GPs.

The provider and her team were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 if they judged that people were deprived of their liberty for their own safety. Most people in the home were able to leave the building when they wished and had flexible lifestyle choices. People told us that their consent was sought for any interaction, where possible.

People in the home were more than happy with

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was safe.

Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from harm and abuse.

There were enough staff employed to ensure people were as safe as possible.

Medicines were suitably managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were suitably inducted, trained and supervised to allow for them to develop in their roles.

The staff team understood their responsibilities when they thought that a person was being deprived of their liberty.

People told us that they were really well fed in the house and we saw good attention paid to nutrition and hydration.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was caring.

We observed positive and sensitive staff approaches.

People told us that they were always treated with dignity and respect.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was responsive.

The team had developed and improved assessments and care plans so that they were much more person centred.

People told us they were happy with the hobbies, outings and entertainments on offer.

There had been no formal complaints because people told us that any issues were dealt with promptly.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was well-led.

The service had a new manager with a suitable care background who was applying to be registered with CQC.

People told us that the provider had created an open and transparent culture in the home which the staff team followed.

The management team had created their own quality assurance system that allowed them to work on continuous improvement.