• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Purbeck Care

East Stoke, Wareham, Dorset, BH20 6AT (01929) 552201

Provided and run by:
Purbeck Care Limited

All Inspections

18 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to check that Purbeck Care had made improvements to the management of medicines, staffing and arrangements in place to support staff. We also looked at the safety and suitability of the premises.

We found that Purbeck Care had made improvements to the way medicines were handled and managed. Medicines were kept and administered safely. Appropriate arrangements were in place to record medicines and training had been arranged for staff to ensure they were competent in supporting people with this aspect of their care.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. We found that the provider had plans in place to maintain and refurbish the premises. Repairs were being carried out where there were identified needs to ensure the home was safe and suitable for use. People who used the service spoke positively about their home and had been involved in choosing colour schemes and accessories to personalise their bedrooms.

The provider was taking appropriate steps to ensure that there were enough staff available, with suitable qualifications, skills and experience, to meet people's needs. Staff told us that, overall, there were enough staff to meet people's needs and they felt they had the right knowledge and skills to support people.

The provider had arrangements in place to deliver training and support to staff. Staff told us they felt supported in their work and that improvements had been made to the training provided. However, these arrangements had not been fully implemented. This meant that staff had not always received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal to ensure they were able to deliver care and treatment to people safely and to an appropriate standard.

9, 10 April 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We inspected all five areas of the home during our visit where a total of 38 people were accommodated.

People were treated with consideration and respect. One person told us, 'The staff here are really good and listen to what I have to say.'

People's needs were assessed and support was planned and delivered to meet people's needs. One person's relative told us, 'They know her well. I don't think there is anywhere else that could look after her as well.'

People told us that they had a choice of food and had enough to eat. One person told us, 'We are able to choose food the menu is good, I like it.' . One person's relative told us, 'He lost a lot of weight when he moved in. He had problems with his teeth. They are regularly weighing him now and making sure he eats.'

The provider had developed a policy on restraint following our last inspection. However the provider did not have policy and guidance for staff with regards to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The home was clean and staff were aware of how to reduce the risk of infection. However, there was not an effective system in place to ensure the cleanliness of some reusable medical devices.

Medication was administered safely. However the provider had not made appropriate arrangements for the storage and recording of medicines.

The provider obtained appropriate information prior to appointing staff.

25 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the last inspection on 14 August 2012 we found that standards were not being met in a number of areas. We received a plan from the provider which set out the actions they would take in response to the shortcomings identified.

We found that improvements had been made, although more needed to be done to ensure that people were always supported in a safe and consistent way. For example, there was better information about people's health and care needs. However there was a lack of clear guidance about restraint and physical intervention by staff.

People who used the service told us they did things that they enjoyed, such as going shopping and visiting places of interest. One person said that an activity was planned for each day but commented 'I don't have to do it'.

Staff told us that they felt supported in their work. However we found that the arrangements being made for the training and deployment of staff were not adequate for a service of this complexity.

Systems were in place for monitoring the service, although the methods used may not be fully capturing people's experiences. We found that the provider was taking steps to become more pro-active in relation to service improvement and to safeguarding people and their rights. A multi-agency safeguarding investigation was continuing at the time of our inspection. The outcome of this investigation will help to inform our assessment of the service and we will take further action as necessary.

14 August 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We did an unannounced inspection on Tuesday 14 August 2012 because concerns had been raised that people living in the home might be at risk of abuse and were not safe. At the time of our visit 43 people were living in the home in five separate areas known as; Garden Cottage, Stable Cottage, Harmony House, East Stoke House and the Bungalows.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We observed care, spoke with staff and looked at care records.

We asked people about the activities they did in the home. One person we spoke with said they took a pottery class and had made a teapot. They said they really enjoyed this. They also told us that staff were; "Really nice and thoughtful."

We heard staff talk about people living in the home in front of other people. We heard staff talk about other staff in front of people living in the home. We read in one person's support plan that staff should ensure they did not speak about other people in front of this person.

One person was constantly supported by a member of staff. During our visit we were hugged and grabbed several times by this person. The member of staff did not stop them, explain this was inappropriate or redirect the person to an activity. The care plan for this person gave no guidance to staff on whether the person should be re directed if this behaviour happened.

The restraint policy was not clear and could mislead staff on expectations when supporting someone.

We spoke with one person who was a complaint buddy; part of a new scheme in the home to support people living there to speak up if they were unhappy or worried about the way they had been treated. This person told us they thought this buddy scheme would help people come forward if they were worried.

11 October 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People we spoke with told us that they were able to go out into the community and accepted that they needed support of staff to do this.

People said they were not prevented from going out and were not punished for bad behaviour. People told us of shopping trips and outings they had gone on.

We found that people needed one to one supervision and were happy with this. We observed staff supporting people in a sensitive manner which respected their personal space. Staff asked people what they wanted to do with their time and were aware of personal preferences, for example same gender support.

A social worker told us that they considered the home was open about safeguarding allegations and supported people to raise concerns.

12 January 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us that they received support with going out and doing things they enjoyed, such as visiting a nearby animal sanctuary. One person showed us the chickens that they looked after. Another person had recently moved to one of the bungalows and they said that they were very happy with the change.

People told us that they helped out with the household jobs. One person said that they made some of their own meals. Other people could use their kitchen with support from staff to ensure that they were safe.

People said that they could talk to staff about new things they wanted to do. Information about people's likes and dislikes and the support that they needed was written down in individual plans. The plans were being kept up to date and staff members said that they provided good information about people's needs.

People told us that staff supported them with their medicines. They said that they liked staff to be involved and were happy with the arrangements. One person told us that they might look after their own medicines in the future. As a step towards this, they said that they remembered when they needed their medicines and then asked staff at the correct times, rather than wait for staff to tell them.

People said that they were supported by staff who they knew well and got on with.