You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 19 November 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Rushden Park is a residential care home which was providing personal and nursing care to 46 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 68 people in one purpose-built facility.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm. People were supported to access relevant health and social care professionals.

People received their care at the agreed times. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way. People’s risks were assessed at regular intervals or as their needs changed. Care plans informed staff how to provide care which mitigated known risks.

People received care from staff who knew them well. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs, choices and preferences. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. Staff gained people's consent before providing personal care.

People were involved in the planning of their care which was person centred and updated regularly. People were supported to express themselves, their views were acknowledged and acted upon. There was a complaints system in place and people were confident that any complaints would be responded to appropriately.

Activities were varied and people were supported to take part in as much or as little as they chose. Pastoral care and community involvement were valued.

Staff were employed using safe recruitment practices. Staff received training to enable them to meet people’s needs and were supported to carry out their roles.

The management team continually monitored the quality of the service, identifying issues and making changes to improve care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 11 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 15 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Rushden Park provides nursing care and support for up to 68 older people. The home is situated in Rushden Northamptonshire. At the time of the inspection there were 65 people using the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were supported with regular supervisions.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.

People were supported to access a variety of health professional when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure was in place and accessible to all. Complaint had been responded to appropriately.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Inspection carried out on 11 & 12 February 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 11 & 12 February 2015 and was unannounced.

Rushden Park provides residential and nursing support for up to 68 older people. At the time of our visit there were 64 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 felt safe living at the service. It was evident from talking with staff that they were aware of what they considered to be abuse and how to report this.

Staff knew how to use risk assessments to keep people safe alongside supporting them to be as independent as possible.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs.

Recruitment processes were robust. New staff had undertaken the providers’ induction programme and training to allow them to support people confidently.

Medicines were stored, administered and handled safely.

Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of individual people they supported. People were supported to make choices around their care and daily lives.

Staff had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when assisting people.

Staff always gained consent before supporting people.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff knew how to use them to protect people who were unable to make decisions for themselves.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required. Catering staff knew who required a special diet and this was taken into account.

People had access to a variety of health care professionals if required to make sure they received on-going treatment and care.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff, and spending time with them on activities of their choice.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions and planning their care, and their views were listened to and acted upon.

Staff to treated people with dignity and respect.

There was a complaints procedure in place which had been used effectively.

People were complimentary about the registered manager and staff. It was obvious from our observations that staff, people who used the service and the registered manager had good relationships.

We saw that effective quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvements.

Inspection carried out on 28 November 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we spoke with ten people who used the service four visitors and eight members of staff.

People told us that they had been consulted about their care, treatment and the support available to them. One visitor said, ��I went around several homes before finding this one. This home has staff that care.''

We found that people were supported well and encouraged to make choices about how they spent their day. A person said, ��I enjoyed watching the fireworks from my bedroom window but did not want to go into the garden. And that was ok by the staff.��

We found that there was a varied selection of activities for the residents to pass the time. We saw, for example people engaged in a �gentleman's club� playing dominos. Visitors told us that they found the care very good and were satisfied that their relative was looked after well.

We saw that there were good arrangements in place to protect people from harm.

The provider carried out adequate checks before they employed new staff.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

Inspection carried out on 24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service. They told us that they were consulted about their care, treatment and the support available to them. One person said, ��This is a good place, the staff are kind, and I have been to yoga this morning.��

Relatives who visited the home told us that they found the care at the home good and that staff attended to people's needs in a respectful and dignified way. A visitor said, ��This is a nice home, clean and airy and my relative always looks clean and well looked after.�� Another person told us, �It�s a superb building, purpose built, the majority of the staff are good. It�s a good home, I�d live here.�

We saw that there were robust systems in place to protect people from harm. Staff told us that they felt well supported by their manager and we saw evidence of a robust training programme.

We saw that the provider had adequate quality assurance systems which made sure the safety and comfort of the people they cared for were maintained and any problems quickly resolved.