We carried out a review of the data available to us about Prospect House Residential Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Prospect House Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Accommodation was located over two floors and there was an accessible lift available to use. All rooms at Prospect House were single occupancy.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Proactive management of the environment enabled staff and people living in the home to maintain social distancing, whilst allowing people to be cared for in a homely atmosphere.
The team had prioritised the safety and welfare of the people living at the home. We saw that assessments were in place to reduce risk. Managers and staff continued to review, implement and follow best practice guidance to keep people safe.
Regular, honest and open communication from the registered manager to relatives and friends and a heated garden ‘pod’ named the Chatterbox, provided assurance to relatives and allowed supported visits for people living in the home.
At our last inspection we rated the service as Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure people received the support they needed, and those staff had been safely recruited.
Staff received appropriate training and support that gave them the knowledge and skills they required to carry out their roles. This included training on the administration of medicines and on how to protect people from the risk of harm.
People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were kind and caring, and they respected people's privacy and dignity.
Care planning described the person and the level of support they required. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained an accurate record of the person and their day to day needs.
Activities were made available to people and efforts had been made to ensure these met people’s individual needs and interests.
People and their relatives told us they were aware of how to express concerns or make complaints although no formal complaints had been made to the home.
People were given the opportunity to share their views about the service provided. The feedback we received and our observations on the day of the inspection demonstrated that the home was well managed.
The registered manager carried out audits to ensure people were receiving the care and support they required, and to ensure the premises were maintained in a safe condition.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 6 January 2016 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 18 December 2013 and we found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed.
The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 24 people who require assistance with personal care, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is situated in Swinefleet, a village close to the town of Goole, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The property is on the main road in the centre of the village and there is a small car park to the front of the premises.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.
At this inspection we found that the service was safe. People’s needs were assessed and comprehensive risk assessments put in place to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. Staff had received training on safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of reporting any concerns.
Staff who had responsibility for the administration of medication had completed appropriate training. Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for storage and recording were robust.
People were supported to make decisions and their rights were protected in line with relevant legislation and guidance.
The service had an effective recruitment process and this ensured only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet the needs of people who lived at the home.
Staff told us they were happy with the training provided for them, and we saw that there were effective induction training and refresher training programmes in place.
People were supported to access healthcare services. We saw that advice and guidance from healthcare professionals was incorporated into care plans to ensure that staff provided effective care and support. People’s nutritional needs were met; their likes, dislikes and special diets were known by staff and were catered for.
People using the service were positive about the caring attitudes of staff. We observed that staff were kind, caring and attentive to people’s needs and that they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff encouraged people to make decisions and have choice and control over their daily routines.
We saw that there were systems in place to assess and record people’s needs so that staff could provide personalised care and support. Care plans were updated regularly and information shared so that staff were aware of people’s changing needs.
People told us they were able to make comments, complaints or raise concerns although they had not needed to.
The manager was proactive in monitoring the quality of care and support provided and in driving improvements within the service. There was clear organisation and leadership with good communication between the registered provider, registered manager and staff. We observed that records were well maintained.
There were clear processes in place for what should happen when a person moved to another service, such as a hospital, which ensured that the person's rights were protected and their needs were met.
People were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment. People told us 'The home is immaculate, our bedrooms are cleaned daily and the staff keep everything spotless.'
The home was designed to meet the needs of people who lived there and the provider ensured equipment used to assist people with their daily lives was regularly maintained, safe and fit for purpose.
The provider had an effective quality assurance system in place and people's views and opinions of the service were listened to and acted on where necessary.
Records about people who used the service enabled staff to plan appropriate care, treatment and support. The information needed for this was systematically recorded and stored securely to keep it safe and confidential.
People said 'The care staff are lovely, they look after us very well and the food is nice with plenty of choices.'
People told us they were aware that they could talk to the manager or staff if they had any concerns. One relative told us 'I have not had to say anything to them as everything is sorted out very quickly.'
Staff had been recruited in accordance with the service's policies and procedures to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. Staff received training to ensure that their skills and knowledge remained up to date and the manager regularly supervised their work practice.