You are here

Charnwood Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 14 May 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Charnwood is a ‘care home’ without nursing and is registered to provide accommodation and support for 19 people. At the time of our inspection, there were 14 people living at the service. People living at Charnwood were older people, some of whom were living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were not always safe living at Charnwood. Whilst most risks to individual people’s health, safety and well-being had been assessed and acted upon, we identified avoidable environmental risks during the inspection.

The provider had not addressed the areas of the building which required updating, maintenance and making safe. Some of these areas posed both safety and infection risks to people and staff.

People were happy living at Charnwood, felt safe and enjoyed their lives there. They received personalised care and support which met their needs and preferences. Each person had a care plan in place.

Staff were recruited safely and only those staff suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. Staff received supervision and appraisals in their work. People received care and support from staff who had been trained to do their jobs properly and who worked as a team.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who promoted independence and a sense of well-being. There was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Positive and trusting relationships had been built up and staff knew people and their families well. People were treated with privacy and dignity and spoken to in a respectful way. The service ensured people were not discriminated against and promoted equality and diversity.

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.

Accidents and incidents were analysed to identify any patterns or trends. People were protected from potential abuse by staff who had received training and knew how to raise concerns.

Where specialist advice was required, the service contacted the appropriate professionals.

People received their prescribed medicines safely and were offered and enjoyed a variety of meals.

There was new leadership at the service and the registered manager promoted an open culture.

There was a homely and welcoming atmosphere at the home. People were aware of how to raise concerns if they needed to.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. People, relatives and professionals’ views were regularly sought and acted upon.

We have made one recommendation about the lunchtime experience.

Following the inspection, the registered manager sent a comprehensive service improvement plan as agreed with the provider. This included all the areas of concern identified during the inspection and gave timescales for completion. This will be monitored and followed up on the next inspection visit to the service.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good in all areas and as an overall rating (4 November 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the last report rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about the service. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Inspection carried out on 26 September 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 26 September 2016 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in July 2013 the service was meeting the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Charwood provides accommodation for up to 19 older people who require personal care. On the day of our inspection there were 17 people living at the care home. We were advised that one person was in hospital at the time of our visit.

There was a registered manager in post but she was on annual leave on the day of our inspection. Therefore the inspection was undertaken with the support of the senior staff on duty. 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 were positive about the care they received and they told us they felt safe. People told us that staff knew them well and supported them in their preferred way. We saw that staff had developed a good rapport with people who used the service. People commented on the homely atmosphere within the home.

The staff had a clear awareness and understanding of potential abuse and knew how to protect people from the risk of harm. There was enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Risk assessments and care plans had been developed with the involvement of people. Staff had information on how to minimise identified risks to ensure people were supported in a safe way. People had equipment in place when this was needed, so that staff could assist them safely.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that staff were not aware which people had DoLS authorisations in place to ensure they worked in accordance with these. People told us that their consent was sought before staff provided their support.

Staff told us they felt supported in their role, and that they were provided with the training they needed to meet people’s needs. People were supported to access healthcare services to ensure their healthcare needs were met. People enjoyed the food that was provided and told us they were provided with sufficient quantities of food and drink.

There were warm and friendly interactions between people and staff and we observed staff talking to people respectfully. We saw that staff maintained people’s dignity.

People were happy with the support they received and with the activities that were provided. People told us they did not have any complaints but felt confident any issues they raised would be listened to and dealt with.

People and their relatives were asked for feedback about the quality of the service and any suggestions for improvements were welcomed. There was an open and transparent culture in the home, and people thought the service was well managed. A range of audits was available to monitor the safety, effectiveness and quality of the service provided.

Inspection carried out on 9 July 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection 17 people were in residence. We spoke with three people who used the service, two care staff and the registered manager.

We found that people’s consent for care and treatment was obtained before this was delivered.

Staff had access to care plans that provided relevant information to promote their understanding of people’s care needs and how to meet them. One person who used the service said, “It’s a lovely home they can’t make you more welcome. I’m lucky to be here.”

We observed that people had access to suitable equipment to promote their independence and safety.

There were sufficient staffing levels provided at all times to ensure people’s assessed needs were met. One person who had recently moved into the home said, “I think there is enough staff on duty. I think I am going to be alright here.”

There was an effective quality assurance monitoring system in place to ensure people were not at risk of unsafe care or treatment.

Inspection carried out on 3 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people. During our inspection we spoke with three people, the relatives of two people, three members of the care staff, the deputy care manager and a visiting General Practitioner.

We found that people were involved in making care decisions. Relatives of people living at the home had confidence and "peace of mind" in the care provided by the home. We found that appropriate care was being provided to people. A visiting General Practitioner told us that they had confidence in the way in which the home cares for people. Staff were able to demonstrate good knowledge of the care plans of people, including those with specific care needs such as diabetes.

We found that the home had robust medication processes in place. We found a small number of errors in the application of these processes, but these did not have an identifiable impact on people's health. People told us that they felt safe at the home. We saw that the home was using automatic door release devices to ensure people's safety should a fire break out.

We found that the home had sufficient members of staff on duty in order to provide a good level of service to people. Staff were appropriately skilled and qualified to look after the needs of people at the home. We found that the provider gathered the opinions of people. We saw evidence that the home identified issues and put in action plans to address concerns in a timely way.

Inspection carried out on 19 May 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke to three people who use the service and all were complimentary about the care they receive. They told us that the staff are kind, helpful and always around when you need them.

People who live there were satisfied with the variety of meals made available.

They also told us that staff do talk to them about how they would like to be cared for.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)