You are here

Laurel Bank Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 January 2019

Laurel Bank Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Laurel Bank is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for 51 people. It is not registered to provide nursing care.

At the time of the inspection Laurel Bank was accommodating 51 people in one building across 3 floors. All bedrooms were single occupancy, and some had en-suite facilities. There were a variety of communal areas throughout the home available for people to use.

Laurel Bank was last inspected in November 2015 and at the time the service was rated as being good in all domains. At this inspection we found that the service remained good in the domains safe, effective, caring, and responsive but have rated the well led domain as requires improvement.

We have rated the well led section as requires improvement because the health and safety checks had not identified some of the issues we noted on inspection in relation to the environment, medication and infection control. We recommend that the systems in place for checks and audits are reviewed to ensure they cover all potential areas of risk, including those found during the inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 were positive about the registered manager and confident that they would address any concerns people raised. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and felt supported by the registered manager.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in safeguarding people from abuse and demonstrated their understanding of the procedures to follow so that people were kept safe. There were policies and training provided to underpin this.

Staff were caring towards people and we observed positive and compassionate interaction between staff and the people they were supporting.

Individual risk assessments gave staff guidance on how to minimise and manage identified risks.

Equipment used within the home was maintained and serviced appropriately.

People had their nutritional needs met and had access to a range of health care professionals.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being met. 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 supported this practice.

Recruitment procedures were in place which ensured staff were safely recruited. Staff received the training, support and supervision they needed to carry out their roles effectively.

There was a programme of activities available but people had expressed a wish for further activities to be available for them to engage with. At the time of inspection, the registered manager was considering options to improve the activities available within the home.

The service kept a record of accident, incident, safeguarding concerns, complaints and compliments. These were analysed for themes and learning to reduce the risk of reoccurrences.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 January 2019

The service remains safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 January 2019

The service remains effective.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 January 2019

The service remains caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 January 2019

The service remains responsive.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 15 January 2019

The service was not consistently well led.

Systems of audit and service checks were not robust enough to identify issues we found during the inspection.

Feedback was obtained from people who used the service and this information was used to make improvements within the home.