You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 18 and 30 January 2017. Pinewood Nursing Home provides accommodation for up to 33 people who need support with their personal care. The home provides support for older people requiring nursing care and for some people who are living with dementia. The home is a large, converted period property with sea views. Accommodation is arranged over four floors and there is a talking passenger lift to assist people to get to all floors. The home has 31 single bedrooms, with two which can be used as double rooms if two people choose to share. There were 28 people living at the home at the time of our inspection, two of these people were residential and had their nursing needs met by the community nurse team.

We had previously carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service in November 2014. A breach of a legal requirement had been found at that inspection. The breach was because there were not accurate records in relation to the care and treatment people were receiving. At this inspection we found action had been taken regarding these concerns and the requirement had been met.

The registered manager had left the service in December 2015 and has submitted their application to deregistered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. A new manager was in post who had undertaken an induction period with the registered manager before they left. The manager had started the process to registered with the CQC to become the registered manager at the service. Staff were very positive about the new manager saying they were approachable and always available if they wanted to talk with them.

There were adequate staffing levels to meet people’s needs. The manager had made changes to the deployment of staff which staff said meant they could meet people’s needs more effectively. There were also two registered nurses on duty each morning which enabled improved record keeping. People felt there were adequate numbers of staff on duty and that staff responded to bells promptly.

People were supported by staff who had the required recruitment checks in place. Staff received an induction and were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and how to report concerns. Staff had received training and developed skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. They delivered care that was kind and compassionate.

Individual risks to people’s safety had been assessed and plans written to show how these were being addressed. The home had a contingency plan and had also developed individual personal evacuation plans to support each person.

Medicines were safely managed and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Improvements were made during the inspection to ensure staff were clearly guided regarding the prescribed administration of topical creams.

Care plans were personalised and recognised people’s health and social needs. We raised concerns with the registered manager that care plans did not always cover people’s emotional and psychological needs. During the inspection the registered manager and deputy manager put in place care plans where needed to ensure all people’s emotional and psychological health needs were covered.

People’s views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service. Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Where people lacked capacity, h

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to report suspected abuse.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Appropriate risks to people were identified and reduced as much as possible.

People were protected by a safe recruitment process which ensured only suitable staff were employed.

Accidents and incidents were monitored and any trends identified.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service was effective.

Staff asked for consent before they carried out any personal care. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) (2005) was followed. Improvements were being put into place on the provider’s computerised system to record MCA documentation.

Staff received regular training and supervisions. Appraisals had been scheduled for all staff.

Advice and guidance was sought from relevant professionals to meet people’s healthcare needs.

People enjoyed a varied and nutritious diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate.

Staff knew people very well and showed concern for their well-being.

People and their families were involved in making decisions about their care.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff recognised the importance of maintaining family contact. Visitors and friends were welcomed.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed. Care plans were developed to meet people’s needs. However improvements were needed to ensure there were care plans in place for people’s emotional and psychological needs. Action was taken to put these in place.

People had been involved in planning their care.

People were encouraged to do activities they were interested in.

There was an effective complaints procedure in place. People knew how to make a complaint and they had opportunities to offer feedback about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service was well-led.

Staff spoke positively about the new manager and the changes they had made. The manager and responsible person were visible at the service and inspired staff to provide a quality service.

People, relatives and staff views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service.

The new manager had developed an action plan where they had identified concerns at the service. There was an effective audit program to monitor the quality of care provided and ensure the safe running of the service.