Archived: Amberleigh Manor

Updated 13 January 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the 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 31 October 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector, a specialist occupational therapist (OT) advisor and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience had experience of a range of care services for older people.

Before the inspection we looked at information we held regarding the service, including notifications sent to us by the provider. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who lived in the home, three relatives, three care workers, the cook and the provider. Throughout the day, we observed care practice, the administration of medicines as well as general interactions between the people and staff.

We looked at documentation, including four people’s care and support plans, their health records, risk assessments and daily notes. We also looked at three staff files and records relating to the management of the service. They included audits such as medicine administration and maintenance of the environment, staff rotas, training records and policies and procedures.

Updated 13 January 2017

We inspected Amberleigh Manor on 31 October 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. The service was registered to provide accommodation and care, including nursing care for up to 40 older people, with a range of medical and age related conditions, including arthritis, frailty, mobility issues, diabetes and dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 18 people using the service.

At our last inspection on 14 October 2015 the service was found to be non-compliant in areas relating to personalised care, including meaningful activities and infection control. This represented breaches of Regulations 9 & 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Following that inspection, the provider told us what action they were going to take. At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made, particularly regarding cleanliness and infection control. Despite some inconsistencies with the provision of activities, the service was now compliant with the regulations..

At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in post, which had been a long-standing situation, since the previous registered manager had left the service in October 2013. An acting manager had been appointed but was unable to be present on the day of the inspection. 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. In the absence of the registered manager, a newly appointed business manager was present throughout the inspection.

During our inspection, we observed that people were happy and relaxed with staff and comfortable in their surroundings. One person told us, “I think we are looked after very well.” Another person told us, “Yes, we do feel safe, staff make sure that we are well looked after.”

People received care and support from staff who were appropriately trained and confident to meet their individual needs and they were able to access health, social and medical care, as required. There were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, such as diabetes management and the care of people with dementia. Staff received one-to-one supervision meetings with their manager. Formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals, were also in place.

People’s needs were assessed and their care plans provided staff with clear guidance about how they wanted their individual needs met. Care plans were person centred and contained appropriate risk assessments. They were regularly reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure they reflected people’s changing support needs.

There were policies and procedures in place to keep people safe and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they had completed training in safe working practices. We saw people were supported with patience, consideration and kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed and appropriate pre-employment checks had been made including evidence of identity and satisfactory written references. Appropriate checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector.

Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance by staff who had received appropriate training to help ensure safe practice. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.

People were supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and records were accurately maintained to ensure people were protected from risks associated with eating and drinking. Where risks to people had been identified, these had been appropriately monitored and referrals made to relevant professionals, where necessary.

There was a formal complaints process in place. People were encouraged and supported to express their views about their care and staff were responsive to their comments. Satisfaction questionnaires were used to obtain the views of people who lived in the home, their relatives and other stakeholders.