You are here

Cullum Welch Court Care Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 June 2018

This unannounced inspection took place on 24 April 2018. Cullum Welch Home is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home is registered to accommodate up to 60 people across three separate units over two floors, each of which have separate adapted facilities including dining rooms and sitting areas. There were 45 people living at the home when we visited.

When we inspected Cullum Welch Court in March 2017, we found two breaches of regulations relating to the management of medicines and quality assurance systems.

We then undertook a focused inspection on 16 August 2017 in relation to the breaches of regulation we identified at the March 2017 inspection. We found that the service had followed their action plan and had met statutory requirements.

At this inspection the service continued to meet the regulations and we have therefore rated the service as Good overall.

The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they were safe at the service. People knew how to report any concern or abuse. Staff also had knowledge and understanding of the various types of abuse. They knew how to report any concerns and felt confident that any concerns they raised will be thoroughly investigated and addressed.

Risks to people were managed in a way that promoted their health and well-being. Staff knew the risks associated with people and actions to reduce such risks. Incidents, accidents and near misses were reported, investigated and actions put in place to prevent them from happening again. The home was well maintained, clean and free from unpleasant odour. Health and safety checks were conducted regularly to ensure the home complied with health and safety regulations.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Only trained and competent staff administered medicines to people. Medicines administrations records were correctly completed. Medicines were stored safely.

People received support from sufficient number of staff with suitable skills and experience to meet their needs. Appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to recruit staff to ensure only suitable applicants worked with people.

People’s needs were thoroughly assessed and planned for. People received care from staff who were effectively trained, supported, supervised and appraised in their role. Staff had completed a range of training to do their jobs.

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 gave consent to the care and support they received.

People’s care was delivered in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were asked for their consent before care was provided and staff respected their decisions. Relatives and healthcare professionals were involved in the best interest process to support people who were unable to make decisions about their care. People’s rights were safeguarded under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS authorisations were in place and valid where required.

People had access to a range of healthcare services and to maintain their well-being and good health. The service ensured people’s care was well arranged when they moved between services. There were suitable facilities and adaptations for people to use. The facilities available within the service include bedrooms with en-suite wet

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 June 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe living in the service. Staff were knowledgeable on signs to recognise abuse and how to report their concerns.

Risks to people were managed in a way that kept them safe and promoted their well-being.

Incidents and accidents were reported, reviewed and lessons learnt from them.

There were sufficient staff on duty who were suitably vetted to work with people. People told us staff responded to their needs promptly.

Medicines were managed and stored in a safe way. The home was clean and well maintained. Health and safety systems were up to date. Staff followed infection control procedures

Effective

Good

Updated 27 June 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were thoroughly assessed using recommended assessment tools where relevant.

Staff were well trained, supported and supervised in the job. They had the skills and experience to support people appropriately.

People�s rights were protected in line with the mental capacity act. People consented to their care and support before they were delivered. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under MCA and DoLS.

People�s needs were met by a range of healthcare professionals. Professionals told us that staff liaised effectively with them and followed recommendations given.

There was an effective system in place that ensured people received well-coordinated care when they moved between services.

People�s nutritional and dietary needs were met. People told us they enjoyed the food provided by the service.

The service had suitable facilities, space and adaptations for people to use.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 June 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives spoke favourably of the excellent care they receive from staff. Professionals also commended staff's caring nature.

Staff gave people the emotional support, reassurance and comfort they needed. Staff knew how to communicate effectively with people taking into consideration their needs.

Dignity was strong at the service and staff understood the importance of this. People�s choices and preferences was promoted. People had the privacy they wanted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care was personalised to their needs. Care was planned and delivered in a way that addressed people�s specific needs and requirements.

People were kept occupied with a range of interesting activities they enjoyed. People were supported to maintain their independence and fulfil their potential.

People�s cultural, and religious needs were met. People were supported to maintain relationship important to them.

End-of-life care was provided that met people�s needs. People�s wishes during the final stages of their life was respected.

People knew and were encouraged to make complaints and raised concerns. These were used as an opportunity to improve the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 June 2018

The service was well-led. There was clear and visible management presence in the service. The registered manager understood their role and responsibilities.

People, their relatives, staff and professionals told us that the service was well managed. They told us the service listened to them and acted on their feedbacks. People and their relatives were the centre of service delivered. They were involved in the running of the services.

Staff told us they were supported and they had the leadership they needed to carry out their jobs effectively. Staff felt valued and motivated to develop in their roles and practice.

The service worked in partnership with other external organisations to develop and meet the needs of people.

The provider demonstrated commitment to continuously develop the service. Robust systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service.