You are here

Archived: Retired Nurses National Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

This comprehensive inspection took place on 18 and 21 April 2017. The first day was unannounced.

At the last inspection in January 2016, we told the provider to take action to improve care planning and to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This action has been completed in order to meet the regulations, although improvement is ongoing.

The Retired Nurses National Home is a care home for up to 52 older people. Nursing care is not provided. There were 28 people living there or staying there short term when we inspected. Some people were living with mild or moderate dementia. The service was located in a 1930s purpose-built building. People had individual bedrooms on the ground and first floors, the first floor being accessed by two lifts and three staircases. Communal facilities, such as a lounge, dining room and chapel were located downstairs. There were neatly kept open garden areas to the front and rear of the building, and car parking spaces at the front.

There are eight independent living flats on site and people who live in those are able to participate in activities in the home and have meals. These flats did not form part of our inspection as the service does not provide personal care to people living in them.

As required by the conditions of its registration, the service had a registered manager, who had started in post around the time of the last inspection. 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.

People received care and support that met their individual needs. Their independence was promoted. People, and where appropriate their relatives, were involved in decisions about their care.

Staff treated people with compassion and respect, upholding their dignity.

People consented to their care, unless they did not have the mental capacity to give consent. Where they lacked mental capacity in relation to aspects of their care, a best interests decision was made. This took into account the person’s known preferences and there was consultation with the appropriate people, such as relatives and healthcare professionals.

Medicines were managed safely.

People’s nutritional needs were met. There was a choice of meals and snacks were available around the clock. Specialist advice was sought from healthcare professionals where there were concerns about weight loss or swallowing difficulties.

The service had an activities coordinator, who organised a range of group and individual activities for people to take part in if they chose. They had found out about people’s hobbies and interests in order to design the activities programme.

People were protected against the risk of potential abuse because staff understood their responsibility for safeguarding adults.

The premises were regularly maintained, and key checks were undertaken. However, we identified some environmental hazards, which we drew to the attention of the registered manager. Where able to, they took immediate action. Following the inspection the registered manager confirmed that remedial works had been authorised and were being arranged.

People involved in accidents and incidents were supported to remain safe. There were arrangements in place to keep people safe in an emergency. We have made a recommendation regarding the system for identifying treads and patterns in accidents and incidents.

Safe recruitment practices were followed before new staff were employed to work with people. People were supported by sufficient staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. However, a few people said they thought call bells could be answered more quickly, whereas others were satisfied with the response.

People were positive

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and harm.

Recruitment systems were robust and staffing levels were reviewed and adapted to people�s changing needs.

Medicines were managed consistently and safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had training and supervision to enable them to carry out their roles effectively.

People were asked for their consent to their care. Where people lacked the capacity to consent, staff ensured decisions were taken in their best interests and involved the right professionals.

People were supported to manage their health, and their nutrition and hydration needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was caring.

People received care and support from staff who knew and understood them.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, upholding their dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care that met their individual needs. They were involved in decisions about their care.

People were enabled to take part in group and individual activities within the service and sometimes in the local community.

People were encouraged to maintain their independence as far as possible.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was well led.

People expressed confidence in the way the service was run.

People and staff were confident to approach the management team for guidance and support.

The provider supported the registered manager and staff to bring about improvements.