Archived: Seagull Rest Home EMI

Seagull Rest Home EMI provides care and accommodation for up to 23 people and there were 20 people living at the home when we inspected. The service specialises in the care of those living with dementia. These people were all aged over 65 years and had needs associated with old age and frailty as well as dementia.

The home is single storey. Twenty one bedrooms are single and one is a double. All bedrooms were occupied by one person. One bedroom has an en suite bathroom which had a toilet and shower. There is a bathroom with a toilet and two further bathrooms with a shower and toilet in each. There are four other toilets in the home. The service has two lounge areas which also have dining areas. There is garden area with tables and chairs for people to use.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

At the last inspection in October 2015 we found the provider in breach of Regulations associated with meeting people’s nutrition and hydration needs, ensuring staff received appropriate support and supervision, secure storage of confidential records, managing and responding to risk. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made in these areas and the provider had met the requirements of these Regulations. However we also found that improvements had not been made in all areas since the last inspection and the provider remained in breach of Regulations associated with ensuring a safe and clean premises and providing person-centred care.

At the last inspection in October 2015 we found the provider had not ensured the premises were secure, clean and properly maintained. This was in breach Regulation 15 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider submitted an action plan to say how they would meet this regulation. At this inspection we found the home was still in need of repair and areas were not always clean. This regulation was still not met.

At the last inspection in October 2015 we found the provider had not ensured each person’s needs were fully assessed and care plans designed to meet those needs. This also included a lack of activities for people. This was in breach Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider submitted an action plan to say how they would meet this regulation. At this inspection we found action had been taken to improve the assessments and care plans but that the provider had still not ensured people were adequately supported by the provision of psychological and emotional support in the form of activities. This regulation was still not fully met.

During this inspection we found the service had not ensured medicines were managed safely. This included one person not receiving their medicines for pain relief as prescribed and a lack of supervision when people took their medicines.

The provider’s systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were not adequate. Requirements made from the previous inspection were not fully met and there were also new breaches of Regulations identified. There was a lack of an effective audit and system to check medicines were managed safely. As a result, the service remains “Requires Improvement” overall.

Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People said they felt safe at the home.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff recruitment procedures ensured only those suitable to work in a care setting were employed.

Staff had access to a range of relevant training courses including national recognised qualifications in care.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Staff were trained in the MCA and the DoLS. Appropriate assessments were carried out where people did not have capacity to consent to their care. The service made applications to the local authority for a DoLS authorisation where people did not have capacity to consent to their care and treatment and whose liberty was restricted for their own safety.

People’s health care needs were assessed and monitored. The staff liaised with health care services so people got the right care and treatment.

People and their relatives said staff treated people with kindness and respected people’s privacy.

The complaints procedure was available and displayed in the entrance hall. People and their relatives said the management of the service were approachable and dealt with any issues raised.

The provider sought the views of people and their relatives about the standard of care in the home.

We found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, including two repeated breaches. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Visitors we spoke with made us aware they were happy with the care their relatives received. They talked to us about how they would prefer their relative didn't need a care home, but since they did, they were pleased it was Seagulls. One person said 'I wouldn't mind coming here myself, when the time comes'.

We saw that peoples' privacy and independence were respected, people experienced safe and effective care based on detailed care plans and risk assessments that documented peoples' preferences and met individual needs.

Visitors who we spoke with made us aware they had involvement in their relatives care. One person said they visited every day and were always made very welcome.

People were very happy with the quality of food provided. We observed appetising food being served in adequate amounts. People were given assistance to eat, where necessary.

Infection prevention and control measures throughout the home were adequate to reduce the risk of infection spreading.

One person said that the staff were wonderful and that they encouraged individual independence.

Visitors we spoke with made us aware they were happy with the care their relatives received. One visitor told us: "I, am very impressed with this home, my mother has come on leaps and bounds since she had been here.'

We saw that people's privacy and independence were respected, people experienced safe and effective care based on detailed care plans and risk assessments that documented peoples preferences and met individual needs. Visitors we spoke with made us aware they had involvement in their relatives care.

People using the service were protected from abuse as they were supported by a staff team who had appropriate knowledge and training on safeguarding adults. We saw policies on whistle blowing and safeguarding.

The provider employed sufficient staff to meet the current needs of people at the home. Staff received ongoing training and supervision which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

The Provider had effective systems in place to monitor quality assurance and compliance.