Normanton Retirement Home

Normanton Retirement Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 29 people. On the day of our inspection 28 people were receiving services, some of whom were living with dementia.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

People were not always safe as the systems and procedures at Normanton Retirement Home were ineffective in identifying improvements needed in safety.

People were not safe from infectious illnesses as the infection prevention and control measures at Normanton Retirement Home were not effective.

The provider's quality monitoring procedures were ineffective in identifying the improvements which were needed to drive good care and support.

People received their medicines safely. Staff members had been trained and assessed as competent before supporting people with their medicines. Staff members were aware of the necessary action they should take in the event of an emergency.

People were protected from harm and abuse as the staff team had been trained to recognise potential signs of abuse. People had information on how to raise concerns and were confident any issues would be addressed correctly.

People had access to additional healthcare services when required.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet by a staff team which knew their individual likes and dislikes.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had developed positive relationships. People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like age, gender, disability and religion.

The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or those close to them.

The provider, and management team, had good links with the local communities within which people lived.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was 'Good', (published 03 October 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

The overall rating for the service has changed from good to requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection. Please see the Safe and Well-led sections of this full report.

Enforcement:

We have identified breaches in relation to the premises and how the location was managed.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Normanton Retirement Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, in June 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People continued to receive support which protected them from harm and abuse. Staff supported people in a safe way, monitored risks to their safety and were available when people needed help. People's medicines were managed and stored in a safe way, and they had their medicines without delay.

Staff skills were enhanced through training and meetings where their views were listened to. Staff were encouraged to develop their skills and take on additional responsibilities in the home. Some of the staff had worked there for many years providing people with a continuity of care.

People received care that was kind and compassionate. Care was personalised to the individual and delivered by staff that were respectful, trained, well supported and managed. This ensured people received an excellent caring service.

Relationships with families and friends were cherished and well established. This meant people were able to maintain and develop their bonds with people important to them. Friends and families also built relationships with other people living in the home.

Staff had been praised by relatives about the support they and their loved ones had received during the emotional time at the end of their loved one's life. People received care and support that was individual to them. Their support needs were kept under review and staff responded when there were changes in these needs.

People had opportunities to give feedback and make complaints about the care and support they received. They also had opportunities to make suggestions for improvements at the home and these were listened to.

People lived in a home where they felt confident to convey their feelings and opinions and felt comfortable to speak with staff and managers about concerns and issues that affected them. The provider had systems in place that continued to be effective in assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.

We found that the manager had rewritten everyone's care plans using new forms and that these were being kept up to date.

We saw that the new forms included space for staff to complete capacity assessments and record decisions made on behalf of people where appropriate.

We saw that records of staff supervisions and appraisals had been brought up to date.

People who were able to talk with us told us that the staff respected their choices and decisions. However, we found that care plans identified that some people were not able to make decisions for themselves. There were no records of how decisions were made on behalf of those people or who was making them.

We found that care plans for people who had lived in the home for several years had not been updated recently. However, staff told us that there was good verbal communication at handover meetings about people's changing needs.

We found that medicines were safely stored, handled and administered. Medicine records were accurate and doctors' instructions were properly acted upon.

We found that record keeping was generally poor. Although staff told us that they attended supervision meetings with the manager there were no records of these meetings for over a year. Staff also told us of training courses that they had attended for which there were no records.