• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Legrand Nursing Home Limited

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Tilstock, Whitchurch, Shropshire, SY13 3JL (01948) 880406

Provided and run by:
The Legrand Nursing Home Limited

All Inspections

19 February 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 19 February 2015.

The Legrand Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for adults who require nursing care and who may have a dementia related illness for a maximum of 38 people. There were 35 people living at home on the day of the inspection. There was a registered manager in place. 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 told us that they felt safe and free from the potential risk of abuse. Staff told us about how they kept people safe. During our inspection we observed that staff were available to provide advice or guidance that reduced people’s risks.

People received their medicines as prescribed and at the correct time. However, we found systems and processes needed to be improved. Staff had not monitored the amount of medicines used where people required medicines ‘as needed’. The provider would then be able to identify where a person required a review of their medicines.

People and relatives told us there were enough staff to support people at the home. Staff at the home felt there were enough staff to meet the needs of people living at the home. However, the provider agreed that reviewing people’s health and care needs would make better use of their current staffing group.

People told us they liked the staff and felt they knew how to look after them. Staff were provided with training which they felt reflected the needs of people who lived at the home. Nursing staff were limited in their clinical supervision and support, but a nurse had been recruited to support them.

Assessments of people’s capacity to consent and records of decisions had not been completed in their best interests. The provider could not show how people gave their consent to care and treatment or how they made decisions in the person’s best interests. Therefore, people had decisions made on their behalf without the relevant people being consulted.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered to meet those needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals that provided treatment, advice and guidance to support their health needs.

People told us and we saw that their privacy and dignity were respected and staff were kind to them. However, on occasions we saw that people had not always received supported to have their choices and decisions respected.

People had not always been involved in the planning of their care due to their capacity to make decisions. However, some relatives felt they were involved in their family members care and were asked for their opinions and input.

People had not always been supported to maintain their hobbies and interests or live in an environment that supported their needs. Relatives we spoke with told us they were not aware of the provider’s complaints policy, but were confident to approach the manager if they were not happy with their care. The provider had not reviewed or responded to all concerns raised. They had not used the information to learn and improve the service.

The provider and registered manager had not made regular checks to monitor the quality of the care that people received and look at where improvements may be needed. The management team had not kept their knowledge current. The management team were approachable and visible within the home which people and relatives liked.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

9 June 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. Most people living at Legrand were not able to speak to us about what life was like for them because of the effects of their illness. During our inspection, we spent time observing how people were supported and cared for. We also spent time talking to four relatives.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Relatives spoken with felt that people were cared for safely. One relative told us, 'I feel that my relative is safe here'. The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Staff when asked, showed an understanding of what constituted abuse, including the signs to look out for. Staff confirmed that they had not witnessed any poor or abusive practices in the home. Staff knew how and when to report any concerns relating to the safety of people living at the service.

Relatives commented that they felt medicines were managed well. Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage medicines. This meant that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines.

Risks to people had been identified, assessed and kept under review.

Is the service effective?

People's relatives told us that they felt the service met their relatives' needs. People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs.

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. Suitable and nutritious food and drink was provided which was freshly prepared in the service. More could be done however to offer a choice of food to people.

Is the service caring?

The atmosphere in the home appeared relaxed. During our inspection, we spent time observing how people were supported and cared for. Staff were supportive and respectful. Staff responded well to people's needs offering reassurance and guidance where needed. One relative told us, 'The care is very good and staff are very kind.'

Is the service responsive?

The registered manager and staff told us that the provider had sought the views of people's representatives formally, for example through the use of satisfaction questionnaires. This was done on an annual basis and analysed.

Relatives told us that they had not made a complaint, but told us they knew what to do and felt confident that their concerns would be listened to. The service's complaints records showed that concerns and complaints were responded to.

Is the service well led?

The service had a registered manager in post, who was well supported by a clinical lead. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt part of a good team. Staff felt they met people's needs and provided a good service.

The registered manager showed us their schedule for planned audits. This covered a number of aspects such as care plans, daily reports, incidents and accidents and risk assessments. A robust medication auditing system had been implemented and resulted in improved medicines management and outcomes for people.

29, 30 January 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spent time in the communal areas of the home so that we could see what life was like there. Staff interactions were supportive and respectful. We spoke with four relatives. All were complimentary about the care and support their relative received. One relative described the care as, 'very good'. Another relative told us, 'I'm overjoyed with the care my relative receives here'.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs. Where people did not have the capacity to consent to care and treatment, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. Relatives we spoke with told us that they felt involved in the care planning process and told us they were kept informed of any changes in their relative's needs.

A pharmacist inspector from the Care Quality Commission visited the home. People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Where able, people who used the service and their relatives were asked for their views about care and treatment and they were acted upon where necessary. Auditing systems were inadequate for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. The service was not always assessing and managing risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of people.

25 April 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke to three people who lived at the home, one healthcare professional, four relatives, six staff and the manager/provider.

All the people spoken with were very satisfied with the care they received. One person told us that they 'couldn't ask for better' and another person commented that they were 'very well looked after'.

Both people who lived at Legrand, and relatives spoke very positively about the manager/provider who was described as 'fantastic' by one relative.

People told us that their privacy and dignity was always promoted and respected. Our observations supported this and we saw examples of good care.

All the relatives spoken with were very satisfied with the standard of care provided and how staff worked together to care for people. Visitors were made welcome and able to visit whenever they wanted to.

People received access to medical and healthcare whenever necessary.

We observed care throughout the day and we saw staff to be kind, sensitive and responsive to people's needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to keep people safe from the risk of harm and the home provided information and training to them on how to do this.

The home was clean and tidy but some infection control issues were identified that need addressing to reduce the risk of cross infection.

Staff were supported by the management team and provided with appropriate training to make sure they could provide appropriate care and support. Staff did not receive formal supervision of their practice to make sure that they were working in line with the home's expectations.

Management systems were in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of the care provided and this included seeking the views of people who lived and worked in the home.