Archived: Kilpeacon House Residential Care Home

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Management and care staff understand their responsibilities under the DoLS Codes of Practice.

Risks relating to care, treatment and support had been appropriately assessed and were being managed well to keep people safe from accidental harm.

Care plans provided evidence of good risk management. For example, information in records provided evidence of staff taking prompt action to prevent people living in the home from losing weight.

The home's equipment had been subject to servicing and maintenance at regular intervals to make sure it was safe to use.

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage safe handling and recording of medicines.

Is the service effective?

Staff understood and respected the people they cared for as individuals and provided their care and support in line with each person's choices and preferences.

Systems for dealing with complaints, suggestions and compliments made sure that the views of people using the service and their representatives were responded to by making improvements where appropriate.

Is the service caring?

People living in the home were provided with stimulating and interesting activities, and care and support was in line with good practice guidelines. We saw staff treating people with respect and compassion. A person living in the home told us, "The staff are very kind and helpful you know. I have no complaints about anything."

Is the service responsive?

People living in the home had their needs assessed and their care plans showed us how staff would provide care and support to meet their needs. Care plans also contained some information about individuals' choices and preferences.

We saw staff responding to people's requests for help in a timely and respectful manner. Satisfaction surveys contained positive comments about the standards of service provided. Comments included, "We are very pleased with the care provided and happy with the way our relative has settled in" and "I trust the staff to work in my mother's best interests".

Five of the seven satisfaction surveys contained comments relating to the standard of d'cor and refurbishment in the home, for example, "Feels like the place needs redecorating and updating" and "The d'cor has become tatty over the years." The manager told us they had discussed these comments with the provider, who had made a commitment to implement a rolling programme of redecoration and refurbishment in the home. This provided evidence that the provider considered suggestions for improving the service, which were in the best interests of the people accommodated.

Is the service well-led?

The provider showed us the systems in place to monitor, audit and review the quality of the service provided in Kilpeacon House. We saw that equipment used in the home had been subject to regular servicing and maintenance. The systems used for auditing medication and maintenance of the fabric, fixtures and fittings in the home were less effective. However, the provider took prompt action to repair a bedroom window, an automatic fire door closer and to obtain a new medication fridge, which were issues highlighted during the first day of our inspection.

The management took a positive approach in responding to feedback from people who used the service and their representatives. We saw evidence of the action being taken to learn from incidents and identify where improvements should be made in the best interests of people using the service.

We saw that an elbow operated tap had been fitted to the staff handwash basin. This ensured that staff working in the home and visiting professionals had access to safe handwashing facilities prior to providing care, treatment and support to people who lived in the home.

The home's food safety report dated 7 July 2013 stated that there were no paper hand towels available at the staff handwash basin on the day of their inspection. During this visit we noted that paper hand towels were available in the wall mounted dispenser next to the basin. The manager told us that further supplies were held in stock.

The manager provided evidence to show that action was being taken to address the issues raised by the food inspector in relation to the storage, handling and preparation of food in the home. This ensured that the people accommodated in the home received safe nutrition.

We found that several people assessed as at risk of developing pressure ulcers, had been provided with the appropriate pressure relieving equipment. A person, who was being cared for in bed on a pressure mattress, told us they were, "Very comfortable".

The majority of people we spoke with were unable to tell us their experiences of receiving care and support. We observed people to be happy and contented and staff interacted well with the people they cared for.

We found the home to be clean, tidy and well maintained. Action had been taken in response to two infection control audits carried out in 2012. However, work to repair a hot tap used for hand washing by staff working in the home and visiting professionals, was outstanding.

Action was being taken to identify a suitable training course for staff as recommended during a recent safeguarding investigation in the home.

We found that suitable risk assessments had been carried out to ensure that people living and working in the home were safe from accidental injury.

We looked at how people were protected from harm at the home. We saw there were robust systems in place to protect people. Training had taken place to make sure staff were clear about their roles in protecting vulnerable people, infection control and moving and handling, for example.

We looked at how well staff were supported to do their work at the home. Staff told us they felt well supported, felt they worked well as a team and that staff morale was good. Staff told us they had supervision with the senior staff and appraisal systems were in place. We also looked at the staff team meetings and saw a wide range of topics were discussed.

People living at the home and the staff confirmed they knew how to raise concerns. There were good systems in place to make sure people were listened to and individuals were confident their concerns would be dealt with promptly.

We were concerned however, about the number of care staff available in the home after 5pm. This was rectified immediately by the provider on the day of our visit.