The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Saltings

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

7 The Saltings, Littlestone, New Romney, Kent, TN28 8AE (01797) 366216

Provided and run by:
Mrs Eileen Mary Campbell and Stephen Antony Campbell

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

17 and 25 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 17 and 25 November 2015 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out on 23 July 2014 and there were concerns around the service protecting people harm. At this inspection, we found the provider had met the required actions. The Saltings is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three people who have a learning disability.

The Saltings is a detached house in a residential small cul-de-sac. The home is not suitable for people with physical mobility problems. There is a driveway and some on street parking. A bus stop and the beach are within walking distance. New Romney town and its amenities are close by.

At the time of the inspection three people were living at the service, each having their own bedroom. People had access to a communal lounge, dining area, kitchen, laundry room and shared bathrooms. There is a well maintained garden and outside area.

The owners both work in the service on a daily basis and one is the 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. We spoke with both providers who were available throughout the inspection.

Most risks associated with people’s care and support had been assessed and in most cases procedures were in place to keep people safe. However some guidance for staff to help keep people safe required more detail. Two people told us they received their medicines safely and when they should.

Two people said they had a say in the planning of their care and support. Care records contained information about people’s wishes and preferences and some pictures and photographs to make them more meaningful. They detailed people’s skills in relation to tasks and what help they may require from staff, in order that their independence was maintained. People had regular reviews of their care and support where they were able to discuss any concerns.

People had in depth personalised care records, risk assessments and guidance in place to help staff to support them in an individual way. They contained information about people’s wishes and preferences and some pictures and photographs to make them more meaningful. They detailed people’s skills in relation to tasks and what help they may require from staff, in order that their independence was maintained. People had regular reviews of their care and support where they and their relatives were able to discuss any concerns.

Staff members encouraged people to be involved and feel included in their environment. Staff spoke about people in a respectful way which demonstrated they cared about the people’s welfare. People interacted positively with staff, smiling and being involved in conversations. People had opportunities to undertake activities and access the community. People attended local centres and enjoyed the activities undertaken, such as woodwork. People enjoyed many social events such as going to local concerts, discos, the cinema and parties. Some people had family that were important to them and contact was supported by staff.

A new induction and training programme had recently been introduced by the provider. We examined the materials which included a workbook and DVD. The induction programme incorporates the recently introduced care certificate, which is an identified set of standards that health and social care workers adhere to in their daily working life. The provider told us that previously they had no formal induction process; new staff shadowed existing staff and completed a programme of training and 1:1 sessions with the provider. Staff training included courses relevant to the needs of people supported by the service.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of this report.

23 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection over three and a half hours in the evening between 6:30pm and 10:00pm. We met and spoke with all three people living at the home and spoke with one person in some detail. We spoke with the two providers of the service and to a member of night staff. The providers were available throughout the inspection. The summary describes what people using the service, and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found that most aspects of the service were safe. People said or indicated that they felt safe, but some aspects around assessment and accessibility to complaints systems needed to improve.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Some restrictions were in place that prevented people from leaving the home without staff. Whilst it was clear this was done in the spirit of safety, the providers had not assessed if people had capacity to agree to this restriction. There had not been any steps taken to see what could be done to reduce risk which might reduce restriction for some.

There was a complaints process in place, but this was in the format of written text only. Although it was written in plain English, it was not presented in a way that was accessible to people. As such, it was not clear if people knew they had a right to complain, and who to take complaints to.

People were supported in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and staff said management provided supervision, and was in direct contact with the home and team most days. The staff said providers were easy to speak with and that it was possible to raise concerns. The system for providing people with medicines was straightforward, staff were trained how to use it and it was regularly audited. There were evacuation plans and systems in place in the event of a fire, and the service specific risk assessment had been reviewed by a professional consultant in July 2014.

Is the service effective?

People were involved in their assessment and care planning. Relatives or care managers were involved in helping people have a say.

Environmental checks for the safety of the premises were taking place monthly and there was a system for staff to report any concerns. The provider made sure any maintenance issues were resolved without delay. People were able to choose what meals to have and the providers kept records to assess people had sufficient nutrition.

Is the service caring?

The providers worked as direct hands on support workers with the people living at the home. They and the staff team knew the people living at the home very well. People were observed to be treated respectfully, but occasionally were referred to as 'boys'. Although it was apparent that this was not meant in a disparaging way, how professional care providers refer to people needs to be done so carefully. Consideration should be given to how the person would identify themselves and how such a term may misrepresent the person to a listener.

All three people appeared relaxed and happy in the company of staff. We observed that the people led the support they received, for example, people were seen to seek staff help as they needed it. We saw staff provided appropriately paced, discrete support around personal care. Two people were unable to voice their opinion verbally, but indicated though smiling and general body language that they were content living at the home. One person said they could speak to staff any time and named the team.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. People's likes and dislikes were noted, and as they changed, the records were updated. The providers observed and recorded people's changing behaviour, and where there was communication difficulties, analysed what might be the problem. This approach had helped people change day-service provision and to be more orientated in their own home. We observed that the staff listened to people, and took appropriate action to support them in their daily routines. We saw staff responded promptly to people's requests.

Is the service well led?

The staff member we spoke with said that providers were focused on providing a great service for the people. They told us that if there was a problem, the providers were quick to help sort it out. We saw that the training and monitoring provided to staff improved the support and safety of the service. Surveys had been sent out to people's relatives and care managers but none had been returned. The service had not received any complaints. Some of the systems set up to monitor quality were not as effective as they could be; the provider was uncertain when some people's reviews were next due.

7 May 2013

During a routine inspection

Three people were living at the home at the time of the inspection. One person was in hospital, one person was at a day centre in the community and another was at the service. Some people were unable to talk to us directly about their experiences due to their complex needs, so we instead spent time observing their experiences at the service and their interactions with staff. In addition we spoke with one person, the staff on duty, read records and observed some of the support that people were given.

People were treated with respect and dignity. They were supported to make decisions about their day to day lives and things that were important to them. People chose what they would like to do and what to eat and staff respected their choices. People could choose how to spend their time at home and in the community.

We saw that staff had a good understanding of people's needs and their individual methods of communication and that people were relaxed with staff. There were enough staff on duty to support people safely.

People's rooms were personalised and they told us or indicated by other methods that they liked the rooms and had chosen the colour schemes.

The provider made regular checks of the service to make sure that people were getting the support they needed and the service was safe. These included asking the people who lived there for their views. We saw one person who indicated that they enjoyed their choice of newspaper they had just collected

20 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service although they had limited verbal communication. We made observations of interactions between the people who used the service and staff. We also spoke with social care professionals and a relative to gain feedback about the service and care and support provided.

People talked happily about the activities they liked and were involved in within the community. These included clubs for woodwork and cooking, walking along the beach and visiting attractions such as an art gallery and local churches. People said they were happy and felt safe living at The Saltings. They told us they liked the staff who were always kind. People said their rooms were nice.