You are here

Pinewood Nursing Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 July 2014
Date of Publication: 16 August 2014
Inspection Report published 16 August 2014 PDF | 89.8 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 22 July 2014

During a routine inspection

One 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. The home could accommodate 30 people and, when we visited, there were 28 people living in the home with one person in hospital for a short stay and one vacancy.

We spoke briefly with all the people living in the home and we spoke with five at greater length. We looked in detail at five care plans. We also spoke with five relatives who were visiting the home during our inspection.

We spoke with the registered manager and nine other members of staff including the cook, the quality assurance supervisor, nursing and care staff.

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

Is the service safe?

We found that people's needs were assessed and their care and treatment was delivered in accordance with the care plan. There were assessments for risks such as manual handling, eating and the use of mobility aids.

Some of the people living in the home had complex needs and so the provider involved other healthcare specialists, such as, the dietician and tissue viability nurse, to ensure the provision of appropriate care and treatment.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

We found that staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of the people living at the home. This included core training in areas such as manual handling, first aid and fire safety. In addition, there was additional training in areas such as dementia and end of life care. We found that there was a good understanding of the mental capacity act and best interest decision making.

Staff were keen to use the most effective practices to treat pressure sores and to prevent falls, for example. We also found care staff sought advice, where appropriate, from the qualified nurses. The nurses provided a high standard of nursing care and we observed an effective handover meeting. A relative we spoke with said, ““The care in this home is excellent. The nurses are very experienced and capable”.

We spoke with the quality assurance supervisor about the on-going work to record and monitor falls within the home. This work had involved the staff working with the local authority ‘falls prevention team’ and had been productive in identifying patterns and may result, over time, in a reduction in the number of falls.

Is the service caring?

One person we spoke with said, “They look after me very well. I am comfortable and happy and I have everything I need.”

We saw that the staff were kind and sensitive and took time, so that people were able to do things at their own pace. We observed high levels of respect and people were treated with consideration and dignity. They were encouraged to make choices and to exercise autonomy and independence where possible. People’s rooms were furnished with personal items and staff knocked and waited to be invited in.

One member of staff said, “I love it here. There is a nice, warm and friendly atmosphere and we work well together.”

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and detailed care plans and risk assessments were maintained and reviewed regularly. We saw that the staff monitored weight, nutrition and hydration and maintained body charts for any sores or skin damage. Staff were diligent in assessment and monitoring and responsive to people's needs.

Call bells were answered promptly and staff were responsive to any changes in the health and wellbeing of people living in the home. If there were any concerns, care staff were quick to escalate issues to the qualified nurses and they would refer on to specialist healthcare professionals as appropriate.

The cook was a fully engaged member of the team and was responsive to different requests for meals and to any issues, such as portion size, raised by people living in the home or their relatives. The people we spoke with and their relatives were positive about the service and the food. The menus were well balanced and the cook was happy to respond to special requests for meals and to cater for special diets as required.

The activities coordinator was not present during our inspection, but people had access to a wide variety of activities within the home and, those who were able could take trips out.

Is the service well-led?

The home was well managed with a qualified team of professional care and nursing staff.

The provider collected feedback from the people living in the home and their relatives through regular meetings and surveys. The manager and staff acted on that feedback to improve the service.

The provider was using a structured framework to maintain high standards in the hone, for managing end of life care and for working with other healthcare partners.

Feedback from the relatives we spoke with was extremely positive and the people living in the home were happy with the care they received.