You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

This inspection took place on Monday 18 April 2016 and was unannounced.

Rayner House provides personal care and accommodation for up to 26 people. They also provide a personal care service to some people who live in the flats within the Yew Trees housing complex next to the home. On the day of our visit, 26 people received care at the home, and two people from the Yew Trees Housing Complex received personal care.

At our last inspection on 16 and 23 December 2014 we identified concerns with quality monitoring in the home. We also identified concerns with the delivery of care to people to ensure they were safe. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

The registered manager had recently cancelled their registration as manager at the home, and the new manager had applied to the CQC to be registered with us. The new manager had worked at the home since June 2015 in a management capacity to support the previous registered manager.

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.

People at the home were supported by staff who were kind, caring and who understood people’s needs, wants and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld by staff.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs. The provider’s recruitment practice provided assurance that all measures had been taken to recruit staff who were safe to work with people. Staff received training and management support to help them effectively meet people’s needs and to keep people safe.

People were supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. The manager understood the importance applying for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) when there was a need for restrictions to be placed on people’s care to keep them safe. No-one who lived at the home was under a DoLS at the time of our visit.

People enjoyed the food provided and the choice of meals available to them. Timely referrals to the relevant healthcare professional were made when staff had concerns about people’s health. People also received healthcare support to maintain their well-being. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Group and individual activities were provided for people’s enjoyment. Staff supported people, where possible, to continue to pursue their individual interests and hobbies.

People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to, although no formal complaints had been made since the new manager started at the service. The manager encouraged open communication with people, relatives and staff, and they in turn, confirmed this was the case.

Quality assurance systems were used effectively to drive improvements in the home. The board of trustees provided good support to the manager in ensuring the home met the needs of people who lived there.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The service is safe.

Sufficient staff were recruited to meet people’s needs, and recruitment practice reduced the risks of the provider recruiting unsuitable staff. Staff understood how to keep people safe, and managed identified risks in relation to people’s care. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The service is effective.

Staff understood and worked with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Staff received training and support to meet people’s needs. People enjoyed their meals and the choices available to them. People’s health care needs were met through timely referrals to healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The service is caring.

Staff were kind, caring and supportive of people. People’s dignity and need for privacy was respected. Visiting times were not restricted and visitors were made welcome by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The home is responsive.

People were supported to take part in activities. People were involved in decisions about their care so that care was provided in the way they preferred. Care records provided staff with the information they needed to respond to people's needs. The complaints procedure was accessible to people and their relations.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The home is well-led

The manager was approachable, and people, their relatives and staff, felt able to speak to them at any time. The board of trustees were active in providing support to the manager in meeting people’s needs. Quality monitoring systems were used to identify and act on any concerns and to make improvements in the quality of care provided.