You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

Quaker House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people. The home is set in its own grounds close to local amenities and the town centre.

Quaker House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

Medicines management had improved and people received their medicines as prescribed from staff who had been trained and were competent to do so.

Staff received guidance in how to keep people safe from harm and abuse and understood how to report any concerns.

Risks associated with people’s health, safety and welfare had been identified and assessed. Emergency evacuation procedures were in place and known to staff.

There were sufficient staff deployed on all shifts with the right skills to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Improvements had been made to ensure staff received training and appraisal to provide them with the required skills, knowledge and competencies for their roles. Some staff had not received regular supervision but felt well supported and able to discuss any issues with the management team at any time.

People’s rights were protected because staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005) and asked for their consent before providing any support. The registered manager understood their responsibility to submit applications for Deprivation of liberty safeguards to the local authority for authorisation when required.

The catering had improved at the home. People were offered a choice of fresh, home cooked food and a choice of drinks that met their preferences and dietary needs.

People were supported by staff to maintain their health and wellbeing and had access to a range of healthcare services when required.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make choices and retain their independence and maintain relationships with people who were important to them. Family and friends could visit at any time.

People and their relatives were involved in planning their support and care. Care plans had improved and were detailed and described how people wanted to receive their support.

People took part in a wide range of activities and events that met their preferences and needs.

The provider was working towards meeting the Accessible Information Standards. Staff used a variety of communication methods to communicate with people where required.

People and relatives were offered opportunities to feedback their views about their care and this was used to help improve the service.

There was a positive, supportive and open culture within the home. Staff felt supported and listened to by the manager and management team who were visible and approachable.

The provider had a complaints procedure and any complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately.

Quality assurance and auditing systems were in place to help drive continuous improvement. Record keeping had improved significantly although there was room for further improvement.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, including submitting notifications of events as required to the commission.

We last inspected the service in October 2017 when we rated the service Requires Improvement with five breaches of regulations. The home has made significan

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

The service has improved and is now safe.

Risks to people had been identified and assessed and measures put in place to mitigate any risks. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Recruitment procedures ensured suitable staff were employed at the home. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

The service had improved and is now effective.

People received support to enjoy a healthy and balanced diet that met their dietary needs and preferences.

The registered manager and staff understood and worked within the principles of the MCA and DoLS.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and had access to a range of healthcare services when required.

Staff received regular training and annual appraisal and whilst not all staff received formal supervision all felt supported in their roles.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

The service remains caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

The service has improved and is now responsive.

There was a wide range of daily activities available for people to take part in which met their preferences, interests and hobbies.

People were involved in the planning of their care as much as possible along with family and staff. Care plans were detailed, person centred and up to date.

The provider had a complaints procedure which was implemented appropriately when a complaint was raised.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

The service had improved and was now well led.

People’s care records and records relating to the management of the home had improved and were well organised and accessible. Some records required further improvement.

There was an open and supportive culture in the home. The manager was approachable and staff felt listened to.

Quality assurance and auditing systems were in place to monitor, assess and improve the quality of service delivery. There were formal and informal opportunities for staff, people and relatives to contribute their views about the home.