You are here

Archived: Plymouth House Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 February 2017

This inspection took place on 19 December 2016 and was unannounced.

The provider of Plymouth House Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation with personal and nursing care for up to 24 people. Care and support is provided to people with dementia, personal and nursing care needs. At the time of this inspection 23 people lived at the home.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection who was also one of the provider’s. 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 had no concerns about their safety. Risks to people’s safety had been identified and staff had training in how to recognised and report abuse.

Staff were recruited in a safe way and had relevant training and support to develop their skills in meeting people’s needs. People were cared for by staff who knew them well and responded to their needs. Staff were visible in communal areas where they supported people at times they needed assistance and similarly people received support when they remained in their own rooms. Staffing arrangements were reviewed regularly to ensure there were enough staff to meet people’s particular needs.

People had their medicines when they needed them and staff had been trained to manage medicines both safely and effectively. Staff used an electronic system to assist them in making sure medicines were administered at the right times and in the right doses to meet people’s health needs.

Staff told us their training was up to date. All staff felt they supported each other and worked well as a team in order to effectively and safely meet people’s needs. Staff were aware of people’s individual needs and how to respond to risks to their health, such as falling or developing sore skin. People had been assisted to eat and drink enough and they had been supported to receive all of the healthcare assistance they needed. People who lived at the home and their relatives were complimentary about the quality of the care staff provided.

Staff had ensured that people's rights were respected by helping them to make decisions for themselves. Where people lacked capacity to make informed decisions these were made by people who knew them well and had the authority to do this in people’s best interests. Staff practices ensured people received care and support in the least restrictive way to meet their needs. When people’s needs changed staff responded to these and sought the advice of health and social care professionals so people had the care and treatment they needed.

People who lived at the home and their relatives had built trusting relationships with staff who they had come to know well. Staff had a high degree of knowledge about people's individual choices and preferences. Staff recognised people's right to privacy, promoted their dignity and respected people’s confidential information.

People were happy with the access and availability to participate in thing they liked to do for fun and interest. People who lived at the home and their relatives were supported to provide their views about the support and care offered. The provider had responsive systems in place to monitor and review complaints to ensure improvements were made where necessary.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The providers and management team showed they had an accountable and responsive approach and were motivated to continue to make on-going improvements to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.

Inspection areas



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse and recruitment procedures helped provide assurances unsuitable people were not employed.

People had been helped to avoid the risk of accidents and medicines were managed by staff who had training to do so.

People’s needs were met without unreasonable delays due to well managed staffing arrangements so people’s safety was not compromised.



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had training and regular support to assist them to meet people’s needs and recognise changes in people’s health.

People were helped to eat and drink enough and they had been supported to receive all the healthcare attention they needed.

People were not unlawfully restricted and they received care in line with their best interests. Staff knew how to seek people’s consent.



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring towards people, and knew them well and respected their dignity and privacy.

People were consulted about their care and assisted to express their views.

Staff understood the importance of people’s relationships and visitors were made welcome.



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive and were happy with the support they received to do things they enjoyed and were interested in.

Staff knew when people’s needs changed and shared information with other staff at daily meetings.

People told us they were aware of how to make a complaint and were confident they could express any concerns and action would be taken.



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was well led.

People and their relatives had been asked for their opinions of the service so their views could be taken into account.

Staff enjoyed their work and understood their roles and responsibilities.

The provider had various arrangements in place which supported the leadership to continue to make improvements to the service for the benefit of people who lived at the home.