Archived: Rathside Rest Home

Updated 25 June 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the registered 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 19 May 2016 and was unannounced. It was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, the registered provider was asked to complete a Provider Information Return [PIR]. This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We considered this information during our inspection. We also looked at the notifications received and reviewed all the intelligence the Care Quality Commission held to help inform us about the level of risk for this service. We contacted the local authority to gain their views about this service. We reviewed all of this information to help us to make a judgement.

We looked at the care records for three people who used the service and inspected a range of medication administration records [MARs]. We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, best interest meetings were held in order to make important decisions on their behalf.

We spoke with five people who used the service and with three relatives. We interviewed three staff, the registered manager and registered provider.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included three staff recruitment files, three staff supervision records and appraisals, the training records, the staff rota, minutes of meetings with staff and resident and relatives, quality assurance audits, complaints information and maintenance records. We also undertook a tour of the building.

During the inspection we observed how staff interacted with people who used the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who were unable to speak with us.

Updated 25 June 2016

The inspection took place on 19 May 2016 and was unannounced. The last inspection of this service was carried out on 30 May 2014 and no breaches of regulation were found.

Rathside Rest Home is registered to provide care and support for up to 32 people, some of whom are living with dementia. The service is located in Scawby, near Brigg. Accommodation is provided on two floors with communal areas provided on each one. The ground floor is used to provide accommodation for people living with dementia; the first floor accommodates people who require help and support with personal care. There is a small car park at the front of the service for visitors to use.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and knew they must report concerns or potential abuse to the management team, local authority or to the CQC. This helped to protect people.

Staffing levels provided on the day of our inspection were adequate to meet people’s needs. Staff understood the risks to people’s wellbeing and knew what action they had to take to help minimise risks. Training in a variety of subjects was provided to staff and it was updated periodically to help develop and maintain the staff’s skills. Staff received supervision and appraisal occurred which helped to support the staff.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and monitored. People’s special dietary needs were known and staff encouraged and assisted people to eat and drink, where necessary. A pictorial menu was provided to help people living with dementia to choose what they would like to eat. Advice was sought from relevant health care professionals to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met.

People were supported by staff to make decisions for themselves. Staff reworded questions or information to help people living with dementia understand what was being said. We saw people chose how to spend their time and gave consent to their care and treatment.

People who used the service were supported to make their own decisions about aspects of their daily lives. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when there were concerns people lacked capacity and important decisions needed to be made.

A programme of activities was provided to help stimulate people. There were items for people to use to help them reminisce. People were encouraged to maintain their hobbies and interests.

We found issues with four bedroom doors being held open by inappropriate means. There was also no carbon monoxide detector in the boiler area of the laundry and an expel air that needed replacing in the sluice. These issues were swiftly addressed by the management team. There was pictorial signage to help people living with dementia to find their way around. The environment was decorated in different colours, and the registered manager told us of future redecoration plans where the environment was to be further enhanced to help people living with dementia. General maintenance occurred and service contracts were in place to maintain equipment so it remained safe to use.

A complaints procedure was in place. This was explained to people living with dementia or to their relations so they were informed. People’s views were asked for and feedback received was acted upon.

The registered provider undertook a variety of audits to help them monitor the quality of the service. Issues found were addressed quickly and thoroughly. The registered provider and registered manager were proactive in supporting people, relatives, visitors and staff. There was a homely and welcoming atmosphere at the service.