Archived: The Old Vicarage Residential Home

The Old Vicarage Residential Home provides residential for up to 15 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 14 people resident at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 registered manager identified when people’s needs changed and may need nursing care. However, whilst waiting for this reassessment, suitable moving and handling equipment was not available to help them to move safely.

The application form completed by new staff did not enable them to share a full employment history or disclose previous convictions. This meant recruitment procedures could be improved to ensure the provider had all the necessary information to check new staff’s suitability to work with people.

People made decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent before they provided support. Where people were not able to make decisions for themselves, capacity assessments had been completed and best interest decisions had been made. Where restrictions had been identified; applications to restrict people of their liberty had been made to ensure this was lawful.

Staff were available at the times people needed them and staff had received training so that people’s care and support needs were met. The provider had introduced the care certificate for new staff to ensure they developed and demonstrated key skills, knowledge, values and behaviours. This would enable staff to provide people with safe, effective, compassionate and high quality care.

People received support from health care professionals where they needed this to keep well. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other professionals as required to meet people’s needs. People were supported to eat and drink and there was a choice of foods available. Specialist diets were catered for and alternative meals could be provided upon request.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them well. We saw that their privacy and dignity was respected and people were called by their preferred name. People were confident that staff supported them in the way they wanted. Where risks associated with people’s health and wellbeing had been identified, there were plans to manage those risks. Risk assessments ensured people could continue to enjoy activities as safely as possible and maintain their independence.

People knew how to make complaints. They were confident that the staff and registered manager would respond to any concern and they could approach them at any time. Complaints were managed in line with the provider’s complaints procedure and people were informed of any investigation and actions.

Quality assurance systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the focus was on continuous improvement. There was an open culture and which put people at the heart of the service. There was regular communication with people and staff whose views were gained on how the service was run; their views were used to make continuous improvements.

We saw that people were able to make day to day decisions about how they were cared for and what they wanted to do.

Treatment, care and support were planned and delivered in a way which met people's individual needs.

People who used the service had a choice of nutritious meals, drinks and snacks throughout the day. One person who used the service said, 'Dinner was very nice. It always is'.

The home was clean and tidy. Staff knew how to reduce the risk of infection. We saw that personal protective equipment was available to staff. A member of staff said, 'We have white aprons for when we handle food and blue for personal care, and of course we have gloves which we throw away after each use'.

Staff told us about their recruitment and checks which had been carried out before they were employed. We found that copies of identification documents had not always been recorded.

The provider had systems in place which enabled them to assess the quality of the service provided. They were responsive to people's needs and adapted the service where this was required.

People living at the home told us they were happy there. One person told us, 'The staff are very nice, I'd rather be at home of course but when you get older you need a little more help'. Care was planned and delivered in a way which met people's needs.

There were appropriate arrangements for the obtaining, storing, administering and disposing of medicines. This meant people were protected against the unsafe use and management of medicines.

Staff were supported to deliver care and treatment safely. A member of staff said, 'Supervision is good, there is always someone you can go to if you need help'.

The service had an effect complaints system in place, although minor issues were not always identified and dealt with.