You are here

Archived: Calderthwaite

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 June 2014
Date of Publication: 10 July 2014
Inspection Report published 10 July 2014 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 27 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff, reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services and reviewed information sent to us by other authorities. We talked with commissioners of services and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

The maximum number of people who can live at Calderthwaite was six. The provider and her husband lived on the top floor of the property and were available all day, every day. Their presence ensured that high levels of care and support were maintained. Most of the quality monitoring was therefore quite informal. We did however see concrete evidence of quality assurance in the service.

The people who lived in the home told us that the provider had very high standards and that she checked on the

quality of "everything, all the time". Staff told us that the provider "would soon tell us if we were doing something wrong."

We looked at the documentation around care. We saw that this was up-to-date and regularly reviewed. We saw, for example, that the provider and one of her team members had started to look at documentation around resuscitation. This was because they felt they needed to formalise some of the requests people made. We saw that any symptoms of ill-health were quickly followed through and healthcare practitioners were called out.

We also had evidence to show that people who lived in the home and their families were asked on a regular basis about their opinions. This was done informally as part of everyday living but, from time to time, the provider sent out formal questionnaires. We saw the analysis of some of these. These were positive and some minor suggestions had been taken forward.

We looked at staff files and saw that these were checked to make sure staff were up-to-date with formal supervision and training.

We noted that some problems had been highlighted in the building and that the provider had found the resources to deal with this. We were told about the replacement windows and rendering to the front and side of the property. We spoke to people in the home who discussed other issues about the environment and they were able to say that the provider was dealing with this and that they would have the choice when for example, the hall carpet was replaced.

The provider had an up to date statement of purpose and some simple but effective policies and procedures. We learned that she used an external consultant who came to the home on a regular basis. This person was used to check that things in the home were running smoothly. This ensured that the provider and her team did not become too isolated. We also noted that the provider attended meetings when ever possible and took the opportunity to join in any training offered by health or the local authority. She also did some training in safeguarding for another provider. This meant that the provider had a good understanding of what was good care provision.