You are here

Glen Rosa & Kitwood House Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

Glen Rosa and Kitwood House provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of 47 older people in single en-suite rooms. Glen Rosa provides accommodation and personal care for up to 33 older people. Kitwood House is a purpose built specialist unit attached to the main building, which provides care for up to 14 older people living with dementia. The service is located close to Ilkley town centre. We inspected the service on the 2 October 2017. On the day of the inspection 46 people were living in the home.

At the last inspection in July 2015 we rated the service ‘good’ overall and in each individual domain.

At this inspection overall we found the service had maintained the rating of ‘good.’ People and relatives were happy with the care provided and we saw some good examples of high quality care and support. However we rated the ‘Is the service safe?’ domain as ‘Requires Improvement.’ This was due to staffing levels not always being consistently maintained. However we did not identify any significant impact on people as a result of this. The management team had already identified this and we were felt assured this would be addressed through the management plans in place.

A registered manager was not in place, although steps were being taken to address this. The registered manager left in August 2017 and a new manager was now in post who had applying to be the registered manager for the service. This was being assessed by our registration department. 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 and relatives spoke positively about the care that was provided by the home. They said staff were appropriately trained, treated them well and told us the management team were effective in their role.

Medicines were safely managed. People received their medicines as prescribed and clear records were kept.

People said they felt safe. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and plans of care created for staff to follow. Learning had taken place following incidents to help improve the safety of the service.

The premises was safely managed and suitable for its purpose as a care home. Adaptions had been made to Kitwood House to ensure a suitable environment for people living with dementia.

People and relatives said there were usually enough staff in the home. However staffing levels were not always consistently maintained on both day and night shifts. We saw the service was in the process of over-recruiting to positions to reduce the likelihood this would continue.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.

Staff received a range of training which was relevant to their role. Staff said they felt well supported by management and received supervision and appraisal.

People praised the choice and variety of food available to them. Where people were at nutritional risk, measures were put in place to help protect them from harm.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, best interest processes had been followed in line with the Act.

The service worked closely with a range of health professionals to ensure healthcare needs were met. Health professionals spoke positively about the service.

Staff knew people well and treated people with kindness and compassion. Information on people’s lives and their current preferences had been sought to aid in the provision of personalised care.

People felt listened to and staff offered them choices on a daily basis.

People’s needs were assessed and used to produce appro

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

People and relatives said there were usually enough staff around, although staffing levels were not always maintained at the required levels. We saw plans were in place to address this shortfall.

People said they felt safe in the home. Risks to people�s health and safety were assessed and used to develop plans of care. We saw learning took place following incidents to improve safety.

Medicines were managed in a safe and proper way. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was effective.

People praised staff and said they were competent in their role. People were cared for by staff who had received a range of training. Staff knew people well.

People were provided with a good range of food and drink. Action was taken to address any nutritional risks.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The service worked closely with the local GP practice and a range of other healthcare professionals to help ensure people�s healthcare needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was caring.

People said they were treated with kindness and compassion by staff. This was confirmed by our observations of care and support.

We saw staff were mindful of people�s privacy and worked to ensure dignity was maintained during care and support tasks.

People were listened to by staff. Staff took the time to patiently explain choices to help people make informed decisions about their daily routines.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People, relatives and health professionals praised the quality of care provided by the home. People�s care needs were assessed and care plans based on people�s needs and preferences produced for staff to follow.

Activities were provided to people on a daily basis to help provide social interaction and stimulation.

A complaints process was in place and we saw it had been followed. People and relatives said they found the management team approachable.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was well led.

People, relatives and staff praised the management team and said they worked effectively. There was an open and person centred culture within the home.

Audits and checks were undertaken and the management team were committed to continuous improvement of the service. People�s feedback was sought and used to make improvements to the way the service operated.