You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

Taptonholme is a small charity run care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 19 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is located in a residential area of west Sheffield, close to local amenities and transport links. The accommodation is provided over four floors, accessed by a passenger lift. The home has a garden and a car park.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Our last inspection at Taptonholme took place on 22 August 2016. We found two breaches in the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were breaches in Regulation 9: Person centred care and Regulation 17: Good governance. The registered provider sent an action plan detailing how they were going to make improvements. At this inspection, we checked improvements the registered provider had made. We found sufficient improvements had been made to meet the requirements of Regulation 9: Person centred care, as care plans and risk assessments were found to be accurate and up to date. We also found sufficient improvements had been made to meet the requirements of Regulation 17: Good governance, as systems were in place to effectively monitor the quality and safety of the service.

This inspection took place on 16 October 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the people who lived at Taptonholme and the staff who worked there did not know we were coming. On the day of our inspection there were 15 people living at Taptonholme.

People we were able to speak with spoke positively about their experience of living at Taptonholme. They told us they felt safe and they liked the staff.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if an allegation was made or they suspected abuse.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely so their health was looked after.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust and ensured people’s safety was promoted.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people’s needs.

Staff were provided with relevant training, supervision and appraisal so they had the skills they needed to undertake their role.

Whilst the home was well maintained, there was no dedicated maintenance person working at the home. This meant that small repairs and maintenance work could take longer to address.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The registered provider’s policies and systems supported this practice.

People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied diet was provided, which took into account dietary needs and preferences so people’s health was promoted and choices could be respected. Pictures and information about the meal choices on offer were not displayed to improve access to information.

Staff knew people well and positive, caring relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and they were involved in decisions about their care. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted. Staff understood how to support people in a sensitive way.

A programme of activities was in place so people were provided with a range of leisure opportunities.

People said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe. People were content and happy to be with staff. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and disposal of medicines. Medicines were stored securely.

The staff recruitment procedures in operation promoted people’s safety.

Staffing levels were adequate to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were provided with a regular programme of training, supervision and appraisal for development and support.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had an understanding of, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to maintain their health by being provided with a balanced diet and having access to a range of healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was caring.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and knew people’s preferences well.

People living at the home, and their relatives, said staff were very caring in their approach.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans contained a range of information and had been reviewed to keep them up to date.

Staff understood people’s preferences and support needs.

People living at the home, or their relatives, were confident in reporting concerns to the registered manager and felt they would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was well led.

The manager was registered with CQC.

Staff told us communication was good within the home. Staff meetings were held.

There were quality assurance and audit processes in place to make sure the home was running safely.

The service had a full range of policies and procedures available for staff so they had access to important information.