You are here

Archived: Overdale Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 March 2016

The inspection took place on 15 January 2016 and was unannounced. The home was previously inspected in January 2014 and the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.

Overdale is a care home providing personal care for up to 25 people. The home is situated in the Nether Edge area of Sheffield, close to bus routes and local amenities. It is a detached villa set in pleasant gardens. Accommodation is on three floors, accessed by a lift. Bedrooms are single and some have en-suite facilities. Communal lounges and a dining room are provided.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

We saw risk assessments in place regarding risks associated with people’s care. However, some risks such around medication and weight loss had not been identified.

The service had policies in place to manage medicines, but they did not include medicines prescribed on an ‘as and when’ basis. We saw medicines were stored safely and temperatures were taken of the room and fridge where they were stored.

We looked at policies and procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse and found them to be informative and they offered guidance to staff.

We saw the service had a staff recruitment system in place which had been followed effectively.

We looked at training records and found staff attended training in mandatory subjects such as first aid, safeguarding, moving and handling and food hygiene. Staff told us told us that training was provided face to face with some practical sessions.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff had received training in this area and were knowledgeable about the subject. We observed staff assisting people throughout the day of our inspection and found staff offered choices and helped people to make a decision. We saw the person’s choice was respected.

People were offered a choice of a nutritious meal and we saw drinks and snacks were served at regular intervals throughout the day. Catering staff were aware of people’s individual diets and provided appropriate alternatives where required.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services as required. We looked at care plans and found evidence that other professionals were involved in people’s care.

We observed staff working with people and found they took time and were supportive. They ensured people’s privacy and dignity was maintained by knocking on bedroom doors before entering and checking if everything was alright.

We looked at care plans and observed staff supporting people and found that people received personalised care which was responsive to their individual needs.

There was a system in place to raise concerns and people felt they would be listened to if they had a problem and it would be rectified.

Leadership was evident at all levels and staff appeared committed to providing a high quality service. Staff knew what was expected of them and when they needed to raise something with the management team.

The service had a quality assurance policy in place to maintain and improve standards which included gathering feedback from people. People we spoke with confirmed that they had the opportunity to comment about the service via a questionnaire and in residents meetings.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 March 2016

The service was not always safe.

We saw risk assessments in place regarding risks associated with people�s care. However some risks had not been identified.

The service had policies in place to manage medicines, but they did not include medicines prescribed on an �as and when� basis.

We found policies and procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff knew how to recognise, respond and report abuse.

We saw the service had a robust staff recruitment system in place.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 March 2016

The service was effective.

We looked at training records and found staff attended training in mandatory subjects. Staff found the training valuable.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were offered a choice of a nutritious meal and we saw drinks and snacks were served at regular intervals throughout the day.

People had access to health care professionals when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 March 2016

The service was caring.

We observed staff working with people and found they took time and were supportive. They interacted well with people.

We found staff respected people and knocked on doors prior to entering.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 March 2016

The service was responsive.

We looked at care plans and observed staff supporting people and found that people received personalised care which was responsive to their individual needs.

The service had a complaints procedure and people felt able to raise concerns if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 March 2016

The service was well led.

Leadership was evident at all levels and staff appeared committed to providing a high quality service.

The service had a quality assurance policy in place to maintain and improve standards which included gathering feedback from people.

We saw audits took place to measure the quality of the service.