You are here


Inspection carried out on 27 July 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 27 July 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Philip Cussins House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under contractual agreements. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is provided from one three storey building and accommodates up to 26 older people, including people who live with dementia or a dementia related condition. At the time of inspection 16 people were using the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The atmosphere in the home was relaxed and welcoming. All people told us they were well-cared for. There was a programme of regular activities and people had the opportunity to be part of the local community.

The environment was well-maintained with a good standard of hygiene. People received a varied and balanced diet to meet their nutritional needs. Systems were in place for people to receive their medicines safely.

There were enough staff available to provide individual care and support to each person. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff assisted people in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff upheld people's human rights and provided support to them as they followed their religious beliefs.

Detailed records reflected the care provided by staff. Care was provided with kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well. People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse.

When new staff were appointed, thorough vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support. Appropriate training was provided and staff were supervised and supported.

Communication was effective to ensure staff and relatives were kept up-to-date about any changes in people’s care and support needs and the running of the service.

A complaints procedure was available. People told us they would feel confident to speak to staff about any concerns if they needed to. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was regular consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service. People had access to an advocate if required.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 12 January 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 12 and 15 January 2016 and was unannounced. This means the provider did not know we were coming. We last inspected Philip Cussins House in February 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at that time.

Philip Cussins House is a 26 bed care home that provides accommodation for people who require support and personal care. Care was provided to older people, including people living with dementia. Nursing care is not provided. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living at the home.

The service had a registered manager. 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 said they felt safe at Philip Cussins House. Staff were trained in and understood the importance of their duty of care to safeguard people against the risk of abuse. Staffing levels were based on people’s needs and enabled safe and responsive care to be provided. New staff were suitably checked and vetted before they were employed.

The home was clean and there was an on-going programme to maintain the building and furnishings. Safety checks were conducted to ensure people received care in a safe environment. Medicines were managed safely to promote people’s health and well-being.

Staff were supported in their roles to meet people’s needs. They received training relevant to their roles, their performance was appraised and they received regular, formal supervision.

People’s nutritional needs and risks were monitored and people were supported with eating and drinking where necessary. Particular care was taken to ensure people cultural and religious needs were met in this and other areas. People were supported to meet their health needs and access health care professionals, including specialist support.

People were consulted about and were able to direct their care and support. Formal processes were followed to uphold the rights of those people unable to make important decisions about their care, or who needed to be deprived of their liberty to receive the care they required.

Staff knew people well and the ways they preferred their care to be given. People and their relatives told us the staff were kind, caring and respectful in their approach. Our observations confirmed this. Alarm bells sounded infrequently and were responded to promptly. Staff assessed people’s needs and risks before they moved in and periodically thereafter. Staff ensured care plans were in place and regularly reviewed. A variety of activities were made available to encourage stimulation and help people meet their social needs.

A range of methods were used that enabled people and their families to express their views about their care and the service they received. This included formal care reviews, ‘residents and relatives’ meetings, quality surveys and a complaints system.

The management arrangements ensured clear lines of accountability. The home’s trustees were a visible presence in the home and knew people using the service well. They were able to articulate the challenges faced by the service, had a clear vision to address these and demonstrated a strong value base that underpinned the operation of the service.

Inspection carried out on 20 February and 3 March 2014

During a routine inspection

People who used the service were positive about the care and support provided. Comments included �It couldn�t be better� and �I love it here�.

We found people were given all the information they needed to make an informed decision about their care and were asked to provide their consent to such care.

We saw people were cared for effectively and care was planned for the individual.

We saw people were safe and protected from abuse.

We saw the provider had an effective recruitment system in place.

The provider had a system in place to record and monitor complaints. Complaints were taken seriously and responded to appropriately.

Inspection carried out on 19 September 2012

During a routine inspection

People using the service spoke very positively about life in the home. They told us they received good quality care and support, and felt safe and secure. Their comments included, �We have a lovely, open atmosphere. I have nothing to complain about�; �Coming to live here was the best decision I made�; �I�m more than happy, the care couldn�t be better�; and, �The staff are lovely, they�ve put me completely at ease�.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)