You are here

Archived: Pippins Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 July 2016

Pippins residential care home offers accommodation with personal care for up to 21 older people. Nursing care is not provided by the service.

This unannounced inspection took place on 31 May 2016. The service was last inspected on 3 December 2013 when it was meeting the requirements that were looked at.

A registered manager was employed at the service. 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. The registered person employed a registered manager although there was no legal requirement to do so. This was because the registered provider is an individual, rather than a company.

People’s personal information was not always stored in a confidential way. However, following the inspection the manager told us they had removed all personal information from communal areas.

Medicines were not always managed safely. People’s medicines were not always ordered in time to ensure stocks were maintained. When medicines were received the total quantity of medicine in stock was not always recorded. Temperatures of the fridge used to store certain medicines were not always recorded. Other aspects of medicine administration were managed safely.

People’s needs were met in a safe and timely way as there were enough staff available. People told us they were happy with staffing levels and told us “Staff are very good, take their time” and “If you ring the bell they always come”. People’s needs were met by kind and caring staff who ensured people’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. People said “This is absolutely the best”, “They look after us well”, “I’m thoroughly spoilt” and “I count my blessings that I am here”.

There were ways for people to express their views about their care. Each person had their care needs reviewed on a regular basis which enabled them to make comments on the care they received and voice their opinions. Some people had completed their own care plans, indicating their needs and preferences. The home operated a key worker system where each person had a nominated member of staff who coordinated their care. Staff told us this helped them build relationships and get to know people well. People knew who their key worker was and could ask them if they needed anything. One person told us they had chosen their key worker. They said “she’s brilliant. She can tell from my face if I’m worried about anything”.

People were encouraged to make suggestions about improving the quality of the service provided. For example, people had requested a box to place outgoing mail into. Such a box had been placed in the hall way.

An activities organiser was employed and there was a range of activities on offer including word games and trips out. People told us they had recently been on a boat trip down the river Dart and had ice cream. During the inspection people were enjoying walking around and sitting in garden. One person said “I like sitting in the garden for fresh air”.

People were supported to maintain good health. A healthy balanced diet was available and people saw their GP when needed. People told us “Food is wonderful. They ask what we would like on the menu” and “It’s a lovely place, good food, good care”.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. Thorough recruitment procedures ensured the risks of unsuitable staff being employed were minimised.

Staff received training that helped them meet people’s needs. For example, staff had received training in moving and transferring, infection control and first aid.

Staff displayed a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This ensured people’

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 July 2016

Some aspects of the service were not safe.

Medicines were not always managed safely.

People were protected from the risks of abuse. Robust recruitment procedures were in place.

Risks to people’s health and welfare were well managed.

People’s needs were met by ensuring there were sufficient staff on duty.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 July 2016

The service was effective.

People received care from staff that were trained and knowledgeable in how to support them.

People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet.

People were supported to maintain good health.

People were asked for their consent before staff provided personal care.

People’s human rights were upheld because staff displayed a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Good

Updated 6 July 2016

Aspects of the service were not caring.

People’s personal information was not always stored in a confidential way.

People’s needs were met by kind and caring staff.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and all personal care was provided in private.

People and their relatives were supported to be involved in making decisions about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 July 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were person centred, comprehensive and reviewed regularly.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs.

People were confident that if they raised concerns these would be dealt with by the registered manager.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 July 2016

The service was well led.

The registered manager was very and approachable.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements.