Homewood

Homewood is a residential care home that provides personal care to up to 50 older people. At the time of our inspection, 32 people were living at the home. There were three floors but at the time of our inspection, the third floor was unoccupied. People resided over two floors known as ‘Elm’ and ‘Oak’.

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

Prior to our inspection, we received concerns about ineffective safeguarding procedures at the home. We found no evidence to substantiate this concern. Each person we spoke with felt protected people from the risk of abuse. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and understood their responsibilities to identify and report any concerns.

There were enough suitably skilled staff to provide safe and effective care. Staff responded to people’s needs in a timely way.

Risks to people's health and wellbeing had been identified and assessed. Risk management plans informed staff how to support people safely and mitigate those identified risks. People’s medicines were ordered, received, securely stored, managed and disposed of safely. People were supported to have their medicines as prescribed. The home was clean, tidy and staff followed good infection prevention and control processes.

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.

Since our last inspection, systems and processes had been improved to ensure the quality of service was continuously monitored. A range of audits were in place which were effective in identifying where improvements were needed. Where any issues had been identified, these were added to a continuous improvement service plan to enable the registered manager to monitor the progress of actions and when these actions had been completed.

People and relatives told us the home was well-led. There was a relaxed atmosphere within the home where people were seen to be laughing and smiling. Staff were present, and supported people in a positive and friendly manner in line with the providers values.

People and relatives told us they had opportunities to provide feedback about the service. The registered manager was visible and people had daily opportunities to speak to them and raise concerns or suggestions

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 1 January 2020).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about effective safeguarding practices. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe section of this full report.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Homewood is a residential care home registered to provide personal care to 50 older people. At the time of our inspection 41 people were living at the home. Each person had their own bedroom on one of three floors known as ‘Ash’, ‘Elm’ and ‘Oak’.

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

People were protected from the risk of abuse and people felt safe. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been identified, assessed and monitored. Records provided staff with information about people’s individual risk’s and what staff needed to do to minimise these risks.

Medicines were managed ordered, stored and administered safely. We found some improvements were required to support safe medicines practices. The home was clean, tidy and odour free. People and relatives told us they had no concerns with the levels of cleanliness in the home.

Records showed staffing levels assessed as meeting people's needs had been maintained, but we received mixed feedback from people and relatives about whether there were enough staff to meet their emotional and social needs.

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 providers policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the home and staff had received training to meet people’s needs. Further training was planned to ensure staff knew about specific health conditions. People told us they were happy with the variety of different activities available to them.

People had enough to eat and drink and told us the quality of food had recently improved. Guidance was provided in care plans about how to encourage people to maintain a healthy diet and their nutritional needs had been assessed. People could eat when, where and what they wanted to.

People's needs, and preferences had been assessed before they moved into the home. People’s care and support was planned in partnership with them and where appropriate, their families. Records showed referrals had been made to other healthcare professionals when necessary to ensure people remained well.

The provider had systems and processes in place to monitor and improve the quality of care provided, but these had not always been used effectively to drive improvement.

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 6 June 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.

People continued to receive safe care and there were enough staff to provide support to people to meet their needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely. The provider had suitably recruited staff to ensure they were able to work with people who used the service.

The care people received continued to be effective. Staff received training linked to the needs of people who lived at the home. People made day to day decisions about their care and staff sought people's consent before helping them. People were supported to stay well and had access to health care services and enjoyed their mealtime experiences.

The service remained caring towards people. People were treated well and this impacted positively on people’s mental and physical wellbeing. Relatives told us they felt their family members were well cared for. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity at all times. People made choices about their care and their views were listened to and acted upon.

The service remains responsive. People and where appropriate their relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. People were supported to maintain their independence and peruse their interests and hobbies. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint should they wish to.

The service remained well-led. The registered manager demonstrated clear leadership. Staff were supported to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively, so that people received care and support in-line with their needs and wishes. The checks the registered manager and provider completed focused upon the experiences people received. Where areas for improvement were identified, systems were in place to ensure lessons were learnt and used to develop the services offered at the home further.

We spoke with the manager and four staff. We found they were knowledgeable about the needs of people who used the service and their responsibilities. Assessments and care plans were in place which identified the care that people who used the service needed and guided staff in the delivery of appropriate care. People who used the service told us that staff asked for their consent before providing care.

Recruitment checks were sufficiently robust to guard against employing unsuitable staff. Comments from people who used the service, about staff were all complimentary and included, 'all lovely'.

A relative of one person who used the service told us that the home was always clean. We saw that Homewood was clean and that good systems were in place to reduce the risk of infection.

We found that Homewood was well managed with good systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care. This meant that there was good oversight of the safety and welfare of people who used the service.

On the day of our visit we met with five people using the service, spoke with two staff, one support staff member, the Chaplain for the service and two relatives of people who lived at Homewood.

People we spoke with who used the service told us they received their care as they requested and were aware of their care plans. Two relatives we spoke with made positive comments about the service.

People spoken with said "Staff are all nice to me" and another person said "This is my home, I don't want to go back to my bungalow.'

We saw that people's needs had been assessed and care plans had been devised to describe how people liked to be supported. Risks to people's health and well being had been identified and measures had been put in place to protect people. Care plans we looked at had been reviewed regularly by senior care staff.

People told us they were encouraged to voice their opinions about their experiences of living in the home.

Staff told us they were happy working in the home and that training opportunities were frequent and planned to ensure staff had sufficient knowledge to meet people's needs.

We saw there were quality assurance systems in place which measured people's satisfaction with the service provided in the home.