You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

Northgate House is a residential care home in Market Weighton for older people, including people who are living with dementia. Since our last inspection the provider had built an extension and there had been extensive refurbishment of the building. The registration of the service had been amended to increase the number of people who could be supported at the home to 32. Accommodation was over two floors, with lift access. A secure courtyard area had been created and some bedrooms had direct access to the courtyard.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good overall, but Requires Improvement in the key question: Is the service effective? The was because the service was not meeting legal requirements in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

At this inspection we found the service had made significant improvement in this area and was now meeting legal requirements. The evidence from the inspection continued to support the rating of Good overall 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.

This inspection took place on 13 and 20 June 2018 and was unannounced. 29 people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and leadership of the home.

People told us they felt safe living at Northgate House. Risks to people were assessed and managed. There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm or abuse. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. The premises were clean and well maintained. The provider took action to address some minor infection control issues we identified on the first day of our inspection.

There were enough staff to respond to people’s needs in a timely manner. Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work to ensure they were suitable to work in a care setting. Staff received an induction, training and supervision to give them the skills and knowledge for their roles.

The provider assessed people's needs in line with best practice. The environment had been planned with consideration of people’s needs. People were supported to receive a varied diet and sufficient to drink. Staff sought advice from healthcare professionals when they had any concerns about people’s health or well-being. This included supporting people to access the GP, community nurses and other specialists, such as the falls team.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Feedback we received from people, relatives and visiting professionals showed us that staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. This was corroborated by the observations we made during our inspection. The interactions between staff and people who used the service were warm and friendly.

The provider had introduced a new care planning system and care plans were recorded electronically on this system. Staff also used this system to document the care they provided; this enabled the provider to monitor that the care delivered was in line with people’s needs and preferences. Care plan contained information about people communication needs, but we have made a recommendation about researching and implementing best practice in the provision of accessible information.

Some activities were provided at the home, and the registered manger had plans to increase the range of activities available by working with a local community scheme.

The provider had a complaints policy in place and people told us they would feel comfortable raising any concerns. There was a quality assurance system and audits to identify any issues and drive improvement. Some audits could be developed further to analyse aspects of the service in more detail, such as care records. We also found some policies needed updating and the provider told us they planned to complete a review of all policies and procedures. People, relatives, visiting professionals and staff were asked for their feedback in surveys. Comments in these surveys indicated there was a high level of satisfaction with the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service has improved to Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service remains Good.