Background to this inspection
Updated
5 December 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.
The inspection took place on Monday 13 November 2017 and was unannounced.
The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an ‘Expert by Experience’. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection visit we reviewed the information which was held about Craignair. This included notifications we had received from the registered provider such as incidents which had occurred in relation to the people who were living at the care home. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law.
A Provider Information Return (PIR) was also submitted and reviewed prior to the inspection. We used information the provider sent us in the PIR. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give us key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also contacted commissioners and the local authority prior to the inspection. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.
During the inspection we spoke with both owners of the home, assistant manager, five members of staff, the cook, maintenance co-ordinator, four people who lived at the home, and four relatives.
During the inspection we also spent time reviewing specific records and documents. These included three care records of people who lived at the home, four staff personnel files, recruitment practices, staff training records, medication administration records and audits, complaints, accidents and incidents and other records relating to the management of the service.
In addition, a Short Observational Framework for Inspection tool (SOFI) was used. SOFI provides a framework to enhance observations during the inspection; it is a way of observing the care and support which is provided and helps to capture the experiences of people who live at the home who could not express their experiences for themselves.
Updated
5 December 2017
The inspection took place on Monday 13 November 2017 and was unannounced.
Craignair is a residential ‘care home’ which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 21 older people living with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of the inspection there were 20 people living at the home.
Accommodation is located over three floors; there are two TV rooms, a large social room and dining room. There is a large garden to the rear of the building and a car park at the front. The home is owned by Mr and Mrs S Neale and is situated in Blundellsands.
At the last inspection, which took place on 24 August 2015 the service was rated ‘Good’.
At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and continued to meet all of the essential standards that we assessed.
There was no registered manager for the service at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is 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 were informed by the owner of Craignair that they were currently recruiting for a registered manager and were ready to appoint a successful candidate.
We reviewed care plans and risk assessments and found that they contained up to date and relevant information in relation to the support needs of people who were living at the home. Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s individual wishes, choices and preferences.
Medication was safely managed and only administered by staff who had received the appropriate training. Medication records were accurate, regular medication audits were undertaken and people received all medication which was prescribed to them.
Safeguarding procedures were in place. All staff were able to explain their understanding of what ‘safeguarding’ meant and the actions they would take to safeguard people in their care.
We reviewed health and safety audit tools which were in place to monitor and assess the quality and standards of the home. There was a variety of different audits/checks conducted which meant that people were living in a safe, clean, well maintained and hygienic environment.
Recruitment was safely and effectively managed. Suitable and sufficient references as well as a disclosure and barring system check (DBS) were in place for all staff. DBS checks ensure that staff who are employed to care and support people are suitable to work within a health and social care setting.
The home operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We reviewed information in relation to capacity assessments and processes which needed to be in place to make decisions in a person’s best interest. Staff had received the necessary MCA/DoLS training. Peoples are plans and risk assessments contained current information in relation to their capacity and restrictions which were in place.
Staff were supported in their roles and completed the necessary training in order to effectively provide the care and support which was required.
We received positive comments about the standard and quality of food being provided. People had different options they could choose from and staff were familiar with specialist needs which needed to be supported.
There was a formal complaints process in place at the home and people informed us that they knew how to make complaints if they ever needed to. At the time of the inspection there were no complaints being investigated.
The home operated an ‘open door’ policy and the culture was supportive, caring, compassionate and respectful. People living at Craignair, staff and relatives we spoke with all provided us with positive feedback about the care being provided.