You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The inspection took place on 27 September, 3 October 2017 and 15 May 2018. It was unannounced.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 11 October 2016. At which breaches of legal requirements were found. A warning notice was served in respect of Regulation 18. This was because people’s safety was sometimes being compromised as there were not enough care staff to provide safe care.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook a focused inspection on the 4 April 2017 and found that they had followed their plan and met legal requirements to comply with the warning notice.

St Michaels Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and care, including nursing care for up to 39 older people with a range of medical and age related conditions, including arthritis, frailty, mobility issues and dementia. The home has 30 bedrooms, some of which may be used as double occupancy. During our inspection there were 29 people living in the service who required varying levels of support.

The provider appointed a new manager in June 2017. The manager had an application in progress to become registered with the commission. 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 were protected from risks to their health and wellbeing. Up to date plans were in place to manage risks, without unduly restricting people’s independence.

People said they felt safe at the service and knew who they would speak to if they had concerns. The service followed the West Sussex safeguarding procedure, which was available to staff. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in reporting any suspicion of abuse.

People were treated with respect and their privacy was promoted. Staff were caring and responsive to the needs of the people they supported. People's health and well-being was assessed and people's needs were met in an individualised way.

People’s medicines were managed safely. People had enough to eat and drink throughout the day and night. The mealtime was an inclusive experience.

There was an open and friendly culture combined with a dedication to providing the best possible care to people. Staff were approachable, professional and keen to talk about their work. The atmosphere in the service was happy and calm. People were engaged and happy; they interacted and chatted with each other. Every person we spoke to, without exception, was complimentary about the caring nature of the staff. People were occupied and happy at the service. We saw that there were activities that people could be involved in. The manager told us that the activities were always under review to ensure that they met the needs of the people currently living at the service. People were engaged and occupied during our visit.

Staff were able to do their jobs safely and to a good standard. They felt the support received helped them to do their jobs well.

There were enough staff on duty to support people with their assessed needs. The manager considered people’s support needs when completing the staffing rota and staffing levels were calculated appropriately. The manager followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure that staff working with people were suitable for their roles.

People benefited from receiving a service from staff who worked well together as a team. The manager and the staff team took pride in their work and were looking for ways to improve the service. Staff were confident they could take any concerns to the manager and these would be taken seriously. People were aware of how to raise a concern and were confident appropriate acti

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was safe

Risks to people had been assessed and appropriate measures were in place to manage the risk, without unduly restricting people’s independence.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide care and meet people’s individual needs in an unhurried manner.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse.

People told us they felt safe living at the home.

People medicines were administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received the training, support and supervision they needed to be able to provide safe and effective care.

Staff adhered to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 code of practice and supported people in line with their deprivation of liberty safeguard authorisations.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People enjoyed their meals.

People health needs were assessed and monitored and appropriate referrals were made to other professionals, where necessary.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were committed to providing quality care. Staff were quick to help and support people.

People were treated with kindness and respect; their dignity and privacy were upheld.

There was a friendly and relaxed atmosphere in the service with good conversation and rapport between staff and people.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People’s care was delivered in a person centred way.

People were occupied and happy at the service.

People were encouraged to raise concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was well-led.

The manager, although not registered with the commission, provided strong, clear leadership and ensured there was a person-centred culture.

Staff told us they were well managed, were treated with respect and were listened to. Staff morale was exceptionally high.

Systems were in place to effectively monitor the quality and safety of the service.

There was an open culture in the service, focussing on the people who used the service. Staff felt comfortable to raise concerns if necessary.