Archived: Camelot Residential Care Home

Updated 4 August 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is 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 8 and 16 June 2017 and was unannounced. This was undertaken by two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We considered information, which included share your experience forms, safeguarding alerts that had been made and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before the inspection we spoke with the local authority who commissioned care for people from the service. During the inspection we talked with eight people who use the service, two relatives and a visiting specialist nurse. We spoke with the care manager who was managing the service while the registered managers were away, three care staff, and the chef. We also spoke with the registered managers on the second day of the inspection.

We spent time observing staff providing care for people in areas throughout the home and observed people having lunch in the dining room. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) during the day. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We reviewed a variety of documents which included three people’s care plans and associated risk and individual need assessments.

We looked at four staff recruitment files, and records of staff training and supervision. We viewed medicine records, policies and procedures, systems for recording complaints, accidents and incidents and quality assurance records.

Updated 4 August 2017

Camelot Residential Care Home is a semi-detached property in the village of Meads on the outskirts of Eastbourne. It provides care and support for up to 17 older people with care needs associated with older age. This included some low physical and health needs and some support needs for people living with a mild dementia and memory loss. The care home provides some respite care and can meet people’s more complex care needs with community support including end of life care when required. At the time of this inspection 14 people were living at the home.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. This inspection took place on 8 and 16 June 2017 and was unannounced.

The home is run by a husband and wife who are the owners and are also the registered managers of the home. For the purpose of this report we will refer to them as registered managers. 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.

Systems in place, including the quality review systems, did not ensure best practice was followed in all areas. Some care documentation was not up to date signed and dated. Risk assessments on nutrition and skin condition were not documented to inform the care provided.

People were looked after by staff who knew and understood their individual needs well. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and supported them to maintain their independence. People’s dignity was protected and staff were respectful. Feedback was positive and people praised both the staff and the relaxed atmosphere in the service.

People told us they felt they were safe and well cared for. They were confident staff were available and looked after them well. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people. They knew what actions to take if they believed people were at risk of harm or abuse. Staff had been trained on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered managers had an understanding of both and followed correct procedures to protect people’s rights. People’s Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.

People had the opportunity to take part in a variety of activities in the service. This took account of people’s preferences and choice. Visitors told us they were warmly welcomed and people were supported to maintain their own friendships and relationships.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to external healthcare professionals such as their GP when they needed it.

People had access to the complaints procedure and complaints were handled appropriately. There was an opportunity for people to share their views on the service and their views were taken into account to improve the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.