You are here

Archived: Russell Green Care Home Requires improvement

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 1 July 2016

Russell Green Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 18 older people requiring nursing or personal care, including people living with dementia. The service is also registered to provide personal care to people living independently in their own home.

We conducted an unannounced inspection of the service on 3 May 2016. There were 16 people living in the home and 17 people using the homecare service on the day of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers (‘the provider’) 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves. At the time of our inspection, no one using the service was subject to a DoLS order or application.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of potential abuse and how to report any concerns. Staff were also aware of the MCA but the provider’s use of ‘best interests’ decision-making processes to support people who lacked capacity to make some decisions was not consistently effective.

Action was also required to improve systems of communication and decision-making between the directors of the registered provider and the registered manager.

Staffing levels were sufficient to support people safely and effectively. Staff were appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people and received the training and support they needed to meet people’s needs and preferences. The provider encouraged staff to study for advanced qualifications.

People were cared for safely and were treated with dignity and respect. People were able to access a range of healthcare professionals when they required specialist support and their medicines were managed safely.

People and their relatives were closely involved in planning the care and support provided by the service. Staff listened to people and understood and respected their needs. Staff worked with each other in a friendly and supportive way and reflected people’s wishes and preferences in the way they delivered care.

People were supported to enjoy a range of activities and pursue their personal interests. Food and drink were provided to a good standard.

People and their relatives knew how to raise a concern and were confident that the provider would respond positively in response to any feedback received. There were systems in place for handling and resolving formal complaints and the provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 July 2016

The service was safe.

Potential risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed and preventive action taken where required.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people using the service.

The provider had sound systems for the recruitment of new staff.

Medicines were well-managed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 1 July 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

The provider’s use of ‘best interests’ decision-making processes to support people who lacked capacity to make some decisions was not consistently effective.

Staff were given a wide range of core training and were encouraged to study for advanced qualifications.

People were provided with food and drink of good quality.

Staff liaised with local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist care or treatment required.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 July 2016

The service was caring.

Staff knew people as individuals and provided person-centred care in a kind and friendly way.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their diverse needs were met.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 July 2016

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care and support which was responsive to their changing needs.

A range of communal activities was provided and people were supported to pursue personal interests and remain active in the local community.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 1 July 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

Action was required to improve systems of communication and decision-making between the directors of the registered provider and the registered manager.

The provider had an effective system for auditing the quality of service provision.

The provider sought a range of views on the quality of the service and took action in to the feedback received.

Staff worked with each other in a friendly and supportive way.