This was an unannounced inspection which was undertaken by one inspector over the course of one day. The registered manager of the home assisted us throughout the inspection.The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
There were 11 people living at Nightingales Residential Home on the day of our inspection. We spoke with five people, two relatives, the registered manager and two members of staff.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
People we spoke with during the inspection had no concerns or complaints about the care and support they received. One person told us, "I absolutely love it, if I could give it 5 stars I would."
Staff records contained all the information required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This meant the provider employed staff who were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people living in the home.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. The provider sought consent from people and or their relatives in relation to their care and was reviewing procedures under the Mental Capacity Act. The manager was aware of what constituted a deprivation of liberty. They were aware of the new Supreme Court ruling and had submitted DoLS applications for people living I the home.
People who lived at the home we spoke with were happy with the service that they had received. All the staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.
People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.
Is the service effective?
People received care and support in accordance with their care plans. Care was planned to meet people's needs. Where a need was identified a plan was in place to meet this. For example, one person's care record stated that they required assistance to change position. This plan detailed the frequency of position changes, the equipment required and the numbers of staff.
People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. One relative told us, "Mum came here from another care home. I cannot fault it, she's improved so much." We spoke with two members of staff who both demonstrated to us that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.
Results from returned satisfaction surveys from people who had stayed at Nightingales were positive about the way people had been cared for.
Is the service caring?
We found the service was caring as people were treated with dignity and respect.
People spoke positively about the care they received and that staff were kind, caring and compassionate. One person told us, "I feel safe here, its home from home. The staff are all lovely." Another person told us "The staff are nice."
People's privacy and dignity was always maintained. This was because staff respected people's privacy by respecting their private spaces and maintaining their dignity during personal care.
We saw that staff were kind and caring in their approach with people. There was information about people's personal preferences, life history and lifestyle choices. This meant that staff had information to be able to care for and support people as individuals.
Is the service responsive?
People's care needs were reviewed and their plans updated to ensure they received a service that met their current needs. Staff worked with and followed the advice of other professionals who were involved in people's care. For example, one person sometimes behaved in a way that upset others living in the home. We saw that the home had obtained professional support and guidance to ensure the safety and welfare of the person and others living in the home.
People accessed the services of healthcare professionals as required. Records of visits from healthcare professionals were kept. For example, we found that visits from chiropodists, district nurses, opticians and GPs were documented.
Is the service well led?
The home had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provided to make sure that the home was run safely. Accidents and incidents were audited so that remedial action could be taken to prevent further occurrences. Other audits included privacy and dignity, infection control, and medicines. We found that actions had been taken as a result of this monitoring. For example, a recent infection control audit highlighted the need to ensure cleaning schedules were completed. We saw that these schedules were in place during our visit.
People were able to comment on the service provided via questionnaires and meetings. People told us that they had recently attended a resident/relative meeting which enabled them to contribute to matters within the home.