You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The inspection took place on 15 and 20 March 2017 and was unannounced.

Atlantis Care Home provides care to older people. The home can accommodate up to twenty people. Atlantis Care Home is also registered to provide personal care, in the form of a domiciliary care service, to people in their own homes. On the day of the inspection 19 people lived in the home and 21 people were being supported in their own homes by the domiciliary care service.

A registered manager was employed to manage the service. 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.

The inspection was carried out in response to a concern raised with CQC that people living in Atlantis care home were not receiving support to read letters, make phone calls, go shopping, maintain their physical independence or partake in any activities.

At this inspection we found people received support, if they requested it, to read letters, make phone calls and go shopping. The registered manager told us they would ask staff to regularly offer these services to people, to help ensure people knew they were available. We also found people were able to maintain their physical independence as far as possible. Staff followed people’s wishes and recommendations from relevant professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met. Activities were available to people. Staff endeavoured to provide group activities as well as one to one time with people.

Our previous inspection found a breach of regulation. This related to care plans for people using the domiciliary care service not containing guidance and direction to staff about how to meet people’s individual needs. During this inspection, we found people’s care plans relating to the domiciliary service included detailed information about how people wanted and needed to have their needs met.

People received support from staff who knew them well and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and the support provided. Comments included, “The girls know what I want and what I need, all the time”

There was a positive culture within the service. The registered manager and provider had clear values about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were shared by the whole staff team. Staff talked about people with fondness and respect and valued the relationships they had built with people. People told us, “The staff cheer me on, they are wonderful”, “The staff are so nice, I wake up in the morning and can’t believe how lucky I am”.

People had their healthcare needs met. People had their medicines as prescribed and on time. A local GP attended the home once per week and had a clear overview of people’s needs and the medicines they required. People were also supported to see a range of health and social care professionals including social workers, chiropodists, district nurses and doctors. Healthcare professionals confirmed they were contacted in a timely manner and staff followed their recommendations.

People told us they felt safe using the service. There were risk assessments in place to help reduce any risks related to people’s care and support needs. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse and were confident any allegations would be taken seriously and investigated to help ensure people were protected.

People were kept safe by suitable staffing levels. People and relatives told us there were enough staff on duty in the care home; and people receiving support from the domiciliary service told us they rarely experienced late calls. Recruitment practices were safe. Checks were carried out prior to staff commencing their employment to ensure they had

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff were recruited safely.

People were protected by staff who could identify abuse and who would act to protect people.

People had risk assessments in place to mitigate risks associated with living at the service.

People’s medicines were managed safely and people received them on time.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 28 April 2017

Is the service effective?

The service was not always effective.

Records did not always reflect how people’s capacity had been assessed and how decisions made in their best interests had been reached.

People received support from staff who knew them well and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

Staff were well supported and felt confident contacting senior staff to raise concerns or ask advice.

People were supported to maintain their health.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was caring. People were looked after by staff who treated them with kindness and respect.

People and visitors spoke highly of staff. Staff spoke about the people they were looking after with fondness.

People felt in control of their care and staff listened to them.

People said staff protected their dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was responsive.

Care records were written to reflect people’s individual needs and were regularly reviewed and updated.

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

People were involved in the planning of their care and their views and wishes were listened to and acted on.

People knew how to make a complaint and raise any concerns. The service took these issues seriously and acted on them in a timely and appropriate manner.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was well led.

The provider and registered manager had clear visions and values about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were understood and shared with the staff team.

People’s feedback about the service was sought and their views were valued and acted upon.

Staff were motivated and inspired to develop and provide quality care.

The provider and registered manager monitored the quality of the care provided and made changes to improve the service people received.