Background to this inspection
Updated
17 January 2017
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 9 November 2016 and was carried out by one adult social care inspector. The inspection was unannounced.
Prior to our inspection we reviewed all of the information we held about the service. We considered information which had been shared with us by the local authority. We also checked on the notifications the registered provider had sent to us about incidents they are required to inform us about by law. We did not ask for a Provider Information Return (PIR) from the service. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Provider information Returns are not always requested in line with inspections, this is particularly the case if inspections need to be rearranged for operational reasons. We gathered the information we needed during the inspection visit.
During the inspection visit we spoke with five people who lived at the service, one visitor, three members of staff and the registered manager. After the inspection visit we spoke with two health and social care professionals. We also spent time observing care in the communal areas of the service.
We looked at all areas of the service, including people’s bedrooms with their permission, where this was possible. We looked at the laundry, bathrooms, toilets and the communal areas. We looked at five care records and associated documentation. This included records relating to the management of the service; for example policies and procedures, audits and staff duty rotas. We looked at the recruitment records for three members of staff. We also observed the lunchtime experience and interactions between staff and people living at the service.
Updated
17 January 2017
This inspection took place on 9 November 2016 and was unannounced.
The Bay Tree Residential Home for the Elderly provides personal care for up to 18 older people, On the day of the inspection there were 12 people living in the home. The service is located in the seaside village of Robin Hoods Bay. The service does not provide nursing care.
The home had a registered manager in post. 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. The registered manager was also the registered provider.
Staff were able to tell us what they would do to ensure people were safe and how to refer any concerns to the correct agencies. People told us they felt safe at the home. The registered provider assessed risks for people regarding their health and the environment of the service. Risk management plans were drawn up with people’s involvement to ensure they were protected from harm while not having their liberty unnecessarily restricted.
The home had sufficient suitable staff to care for people and staff were safely recruited.
People were protected because the staff managed medicines safely.
Staff had received training to ensure that people received care appropriate for their needs. Staff received supervision to support their professional development.
The registered provider ensured that people were treated with regard to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood that people should be consulted about their care and that they should assume that a person had capacity to make decisions. People who did not have capacity to make certain decisions had these made in their best interests in line with the MCA.
People told us they enjoyed the meals and their nutrition and hydration needs were met. People were offered alternatives if they did not like certain menu choices. People’s clinical care needs were met in consultation with health care professionals.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw staff had a good rapport with people and treated them with respect. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s needs.
Care plans provided detailed information about people’s individual needs and preferences. Records and observations provided evidence that people were supported to feel cared for and listened to. Care plans were updated when people's needs changed.
People were supported to engage in daily activities they enjoyed. The registered provider and staff understood what was important to people, their personal histories and social networks so that they could support them in the way they preferred.
People told us their complaints were responded to and the results of complaints investigations were clearly recorded. People we spoke with told us that if they had concerns these were addressed directly with the registered provider who responded quickly.
People told us they saw the registered provider and spoke with them every day they were on duty. They asked people how they were and if there were any improvements they could make each day. People gave us examples of when the registered manager had responded quickly to their suggestions.
The registered provider ensured the quality of the service through a system of audits and checks. They sought feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives, visitors and professionals with an interest in the service and acted on this to improve people’s quality of care. The registered provider recorded a number of audits and kept records of essential checks such as lift servicing, gas and electrical safety certificate and checks on the safety of water temperatures.
Some of the audits and checks were not written down. Annual appraisals were not always recorded so that staff may not receive the support they needed around this area of their work. We made a recommendation about these areas.