You are here

Archived: Capel Grange Private Residential Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 14 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 14 September 2015 by two inspectors and an expert by experience. It was an unannounced inspection. The service provides personal care and accommodation for a maximum of 38 older people. There were 32 people living at the service at the time of our inspection. People had varied communication needs and abilities. Most of the people were able to talk with us about their experiences.

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 was supported by a team of senior carers to ensure the daily management of the service.

People’s medicines had not always been managed in a safe way. Policies for the safe storage and administration of medicines had not been followed consistently.

Risk assessments had not been carried out in respect of all risks to the safety of individuals, for example there was no a risk assessment in place for a person who staff said was at risk of choking. Where people used pressure relieving mattresses there was not a plan in place to help them reposition frequently to further reduce the risk of damage to their skin.

Records about people’s needs and the care provided were not accurately or consistently maintained.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how risks of re-occurrence could be reduced.

Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff had time to spend supporting people in a meaningful way that respected individual needs. Staffing levels were calculated according to people’s needs and were flexible to respond to changes in need.

There were safe recruitment procedures in place. These included the checking of references and carrying out disclosure and barring service checks for prospective employees before they started work. All staff were subject to a probation period and disciplinary procedures if they did not meet the required standards of practice.

People lived in a clean and well maintained environment. Staff had a clear understanding of infection control practice that followed the Department of Health guidelines, which helped minimise risk from infection. The premises were appropriate for the needs of people living with dementia.

Assessments of people’s capacity were carried out in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s wellbeing was promoted by regular visits from healthcare professionals. People were usually supported to seek advice from relevant health professionals in relation to their specific health needs, but a professional assessment of a person’s swallowing difficulties had not been sought before providing the person with a soft diet. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff had appropriate training and experience to support people and meet their individual needs. Staff were provided with the opportunity undertake a relevant health and social care qualification and were supported in their roles.

People were provided with sufficient food and drink to meet their needs. They were provided with a choice of meals.

The premises met the needs of the people that lived there. The registered manager had a good understanding of how to provide an appropriate environment for the needs of people living with dementia. They had provided signs to help people find their way to the bathroom and had used contrasting colours to ensure people with visual difficulties could identify facilities and areas of the service.

Staff were caring and kind in their approach towards people and they were sensitive to each individual’s needs, giving reassurance where needed and encouraging people. Staff respected people’s privacy and confidentiality. People were happy with how their care and treatment was delivered.

Staff knew each person well and understood how to meet their support needs. Each person’s needs and personal preferences had been assessed before they moved into the service and were continually reviewed. Staff understood people’s needs and delivered personalised care.

People were involved in their day to day care. People’s care plans were reviewed with their participation or their representatives’ involvement. The staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.

People’s bedrooms were personalised to reflect their individual tastes and personalities. There was a programme of social activities available to people that was based on their needs and interests.

The service took account of people’s complaints, comments and suggestions. People’s views were sought and acted upon. People’s relatives were asked about their views when they visited the home and when people’s care plans were reviewed. The service sent annual questionnaires to people’s relatives or representatives and analysed and sought to act upon the results of the surveys.

The service notified the Care Quality Commission of any significant events that affected people or the service and promoted a good relationship with stakeholders.

The registered manager kept up to date with any changes in legislation that may affect the service, and participated in monthly forums with other managers from other services where good practice was discussed. The registered manager and deputy manager carried out audits to identify how the service could improve. They acted on the results of these audits and made necessary changes to improve the quality of the service and care.

Inspection carried out on 7 March 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Our inspection of 27 September 2013 found that not all people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care as not all care plans and risk assessments gave staff guidance about how to meet people’s needs and ensure their safety and welfare.

At this inspection we found that people experienced support and care from staff who were familiar with their needs and wishes, knew how to meet these and ensured their safety and welfare. One person who used the service told us “I’m very happy here, the staff are very good”. We found that the manager had taken steps to improve guidance for staff in care plans and risk assessments about how to meet people’s needs and ensure their safety and welfare.

Inspection carried out on 27 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People had access to health care professionals to make sure their health care needs were met. One person told us “The chiropodist and optician come in and the district nurse to individual people.” Although most people’s needs were met, we found that not all care plans evidenced that people received appropriate support.

Recreational activities were provided. One person told us “There were 18 of us who went for fish and chips on the steam train. It was a really good day.”

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People benefitted from comfortable accommodation, which was adequately maintained to meet their needs. One person told us “I like my room and sit out on the patio.” The premises contained some adaptions to assist people with restricted mobility and those who used wheelchairs.

People were supported by enough skilled staff who knew how to meet their needs. One person told us “They come up if I use the buzzer. Staff come really quickly.”

People who used the service and their relatives and/or representatives were asked for their views about the service provided. One person told us “I’ve never had to make a complaint. I’m quite happy.”

Inspection carried out on 26 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered according to their individual needs. People who used the service told us they were happy with the care and support they received. People told us “Staff look after me really well” and “Everyone is very helpful and nice”.

There were a variety of activities available for people who used the service. People told us “I enjoy the quizzes and bingo”, “I liked doing the painting class” and “I like TV and reading. There are books, like a library. People change the books, which is very kind”.

Staff were clear about their responsibilities and showed a good knowledge and understanding of how to meet people’s needs. People who used the service told us that staff were kind and always there if they needed help with any problems. People told us “Staff are superb, very friendly and very efficient. Everyone is very helpful and nice”.

We saw that people were relaxed with staff, who listened to their views and concerns. People told us that they would speak with staff if they had a problem or were worried about anything. People told us “I like it here. Staff are friendly and polite and I feel secure”.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent to their care, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. We saw that staff supported people to make decisions and choices as far as possible.