• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Peterhouse

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Church Street, Old Town, Bexhill On Sea, East Sussex, TN40 2HF 0800 012 1247

Provided and run by:
NABS

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 5 November 2016

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 was an unannounced inspection on 6, 7 and 11October 2016. It was undertaken by one inspector.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home, including previous inspection reports. We contacted the local authority to obtain their views about the care provided. We considered the information which had been shared with us by the local authority and other people, looked at safeguarding alerts which had been made and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we reviewed the records of the home. These included eight staff files including staff recruitment. Training and supervision records, medicine records, complaint records, accidents and incidents, quality audits and policies and procedures along with information in regards to the upkeep of the premises. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). 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.

We also looked at four care plans and risk assessments along with other relevant documentation to support our findings. We also ‘pathway tracked’ people living at the home. This is when we looked at their care documentation in depth and obtained their views on their life at the home. It is an important part of our inspection, as it allowed us to capture information about a sample of people receiving care.

During the inspection, we spoke with eleven people who lived at the home, two relatives, and twelve staff members including the owner and directors. We spoke with a visiting healthcare professional during the inspection and a further three healthcare professionals following the inspection.

We met with people who lived at Peterhouse; we observed the care which was delivered in communal areas to get a view of care and support provided across all areas. This included the lunchtime and evening meals. Some people were unable to speak with us. Therefore we used other methods to help us understand their experiences. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) during the inspection. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 5 November 2016

Peterhouse provides nursing and personal care for up to 39 people who were living with a range of health care needs. This included people who live with a stroke, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. Some people had a degree of memory loss associated with their age and physical health conditions. Most people required help and support from two members of staff in relation to their mobility and personal care needs.

Accommodation is provided over two floors with a lift that provided level access to all parts of the home. People spoke well of the home and relatives confirmed they felt confident leaving their loved ones in the care of staff at Peterhouse.

There is a registered manager at the home. 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.

We inspected Peterhouse on 6, 7 and 11 October 2016. This was an unannounced inspection which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. There were 34 people living at Peterhouse during the inspection process.

Quality assurance systems were in place but had not identified the shortfalls found in care documentation and record keeping. Whilst people’s medicines were stored safely and in line with legal regulations, people did not always receive their medicines as prescribed. There were also missing signatures for medicines. These had not been followed up to ensure that people had received their prescribed medicines. We also found poor recording and lack of directives of topical creams and ‘as required’ medication for pain relief. There were some inconsistencies in the completion of fluid charts and in diabetic guidance for staff to follow. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff but we asked that advice was sought from the fire service in respect of night evacuation plans.

Staff knew people well, they were kind and caring and treated people with respect. They had a good understanding of their care needs and individual choices.

Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that the manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and steps taken by the home to minimise the risk of similar events happening in the future. Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed.

Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, such as diabetes, catheter care and dementia. Staff had received both one to one and group supervision meetings with their manager, and formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals were in place.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Risk assessments were in place and staff had a good understanding of the risks associated with the people they cared for. There were enough staff in place, who had been appropriately recruited, to meet the needs of people.

People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. One person said, “The food is good, always tasty and looks nice.” There was a varied daily choice of meals and people were able to give feedback and have choice in what they ate and drank. People’s special dietary requirements were met. People’s weight was monitored, with their permission and advice sought as required. Health care was accessible for people and appointments were made for regular check-ups as needed.

People could choose how to spend their day and they took part in activities in the home when they wanted to. People themselves told us they enjoyed the activities, which included singing, puzzles and films. People were encouraged to stay in touch with their families and receive visitors.

People felt well looked after and supported, and were encouraged to be as independent as possible. We observed friendly and genuine relationships had developed between people and staff. One person told us, “They treat you well here.” One person told us the staff supported them with their hair and make-up and it made them feel ‘good’.

People were encouraged to express their views and completed surveys, and feedback received showed people were satisfied overall, and felt staff were friendly and helpful. People also said they felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed. One person said, “If there is anything wrong, I tell the staff.”