The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Laurels Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

High Street, Norton, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, DN6 9EU (01302) 709691

Provided and run by:
Kenneth Swales and Andre Swales

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

27 June 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 27 June 2017 and was unannounced. The home was previously inspected in September 2015. It was overall rated good.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘The Laurels Care Home’ on our website at ‘www.cqc.org.uk’.

The service had a registered manager who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission since April 2015. 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 Laurels Care Home is registered to provide residential care for up to 30 people. On the day of our inspection, there were 30 people living at the home.

People we spoke with were positive about their experiences of living at the home and about staff who worked there. They said they felt safe and were “very happy” with staff who were “kind, caring and easy to chat to.”

There were systems in place to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and could explain to us the procedures they would follow if any concerns were raised. Risks associated with people’s care and support were managed without any undue restrictions, and assessments were completed and reviewed regularly.

Medications were stored and administered safely by staff who had necessary skills and competencies. Medication Administration Records (MAR) were completed clearly and accurately when medicines had been administered, refused or destroyed. There were protocols in place for the use of ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medicines.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Staff told us they received regular training and support and we saw adequate pre-employment checks were carried out before a staff member commenced employment at the home.

The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People who used the service were supported to maintain a well-balanced diet and staff were knowledgeable in how to support this. Referrals were made to relevant healthcare professionals, when required, including dieticians, chiropodists and district nurses.

We saw people participated in a range of meaningful daily activities both in and outside of the home that promoted independence and encouraged social interaction.

There was a calm and caring atmosphere in the home throughout the inspection, with people chatting to each other, visitors and staff. Staff spoke with people in a kind and warm manner and people were relaxed in the presence of staff.

The complaints policy was clear and available for people, and contained details of how to raise a complaint. We saw that concerns and complaints were addressed and responded to in a timely manner. People we spoke with said they felt there was no need to complain and that they were happy at the home.

Auditing systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. Action reports were clear and contained dates for completion of each action identified. These action reports were checked each month to determine progress made.

7 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service on 12 and 17 February 2015. We found that the registered person did not have effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. This was in breach of regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We undertook this comprehensive inspection on the 7 September 2015 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now meet legal requirements.

This report covers our findings in relation to the comprehensive inspection on 7 September 2015. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for The Laurels Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

The Laurels Care Home is situated in Norton, Doncaster and is registered to accommodate up to 30 people. Some people at the home were living well with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 26 people living in the home. The service is provided by Kenneth Swales and Andre Swales.

There is a registered manager who manages the day to day operations of 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.

People told us they felt safe living in The Laurels Care Home. Everyone we spoke with told us they were confident that they could tell the staff whatever they needed to if they were worried about anything. There were procedures to follow if staff had any concerns about the safety of people they supported.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.

There were sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies to meet the assessed needs of people living in the home. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a diet that met their nutritional needs. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed all of the meals provided at the home.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. For example, we saw from records that people had received intervention from a speech and language therapist (SALT). This meant people with swallowing difficulties received food and fluids appropriate to their needs. Referrals had also been made to the tissue viability nurse for advice on pressure area care.

We observed people’s needs were met by staff that understood how care should be delivered. We found care records had improved and reflected the care delivered.

Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the unit manager and felt that they were listened to. Formal supervisions had increased and almost all staff had been involved in their yearly appraisals.

We found the home had a friendly relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged them to express how and when they needed support. One person said, “We are well looked after here staff are kind.” Another person said, “I chose to live here as a family member had also lived here in the past so I knew the care was good.”

People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it. We noted from the records that no formal complaints had been received since we last inspected the service.

Systems to monitor the quality of the service had improved since our last inspection. This meant issues identified that required remedial action were addressed in a timely way. For example, medication audits had identified that improvements were needed when commencing new stock of medications prescribed in boxes. We saw the additional safety systems were working in practice.

12 & 17 February 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 12 and 17 February 2015. At the last inspection in November 2014, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements because people’s views and experiences were not always taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. We also found that, where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider did not act in accordance with legal requirements. These actions have now been completed.

The Laurels Care Home is situated in Norton, Doncaster and is registered to accommodate up to 30 people. Some people at the home were living well with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 30 people living in the home. The service is provided by Kenneth Swales and Andre Swales.

There is no registered manager at the service; however, a manager application has been received by the Care Quality Commission from the registered manager at The Laurels Care Home with Nursing. This is owned by the same provider and adjoins The Laurels Care Home. The provider told us they intend to have one registered manager for both locations.

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 told us they felt safe living in The Laurels Care Home. One person said, “I have lived here for a while. We all get on well together and staff make sure we are safe and well looked after.” There were procedures to follow if staff had any concerns about the safety of people they supported.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. For example, we saw from records that people had received intervention from a speech and language therapist (SALT). This meant people with swallowing difficulties received food and fluids appropriate to their needs. Referrals had also been made to the tissue viability nurse for advice on pressure area care.

We observed people’s needs were met by staff that understood how care should be delivered. However, we found care records did not always reflect the up to date needs of people who used the service.

There were insufficient staff at certain periods of the day. We have asked to provider to look at the dependency levels of people who used the service during these periods of the day.

Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the unit manager and felt that they were listened to. However, formal supervision for all staff was not up to date and we have asked the unit manager to address this.

Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals and there was always something on the menu they liked.

People were able to access a few activities like crafts and bingo. However, these sessions were only available two days each week. People told us they particularly enjoyed the planned activities but would like more activities at other times during the week.

We found the home had a friendly relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. One person said, “We are well looked after here staff are kind.” Another person said, “This is my second stay at the home. I would not want to go anywhere else.”

People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it. We noted from the records that one formal complaint had been received in the last 12 months. This was dealt with appropriately.

Systems to monitor the quality of the service were ineffective. This meant issues identified that required remedial action were not always addressed in a timely way. For example, the care plan audit did not identify that some care plans were not up to date. This meant that people who used the service may not receive the care and treatment they required to meet their needs.

Our inspection identified a breach of Regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

17 November 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

Our inspection looked at two of the five questions; is the service caring? Is the service effective?

We carried out this inspection because we received information of concern from the local councils contracting officer. The information received told us that people were not given choice regarding the times they got up and went to bed.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations, speaking with staff that were supporting people who used the service and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service effective?

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards but they were not fully implemented. This meant the person was being cared for in a way they had not consented to, and there was a risk that people were being cared for in a way that was not in their best interest.

Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made. However, the procedures had not been followed and safeguarding referrals had not been made.

People's wishes had not always been considered in relation to times when people got up. Mealtimes were not flexible which meant some people had to wait for long periods without being able to access food.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and saw that they were patient and gave time for people to respond. We found staff to be caring and supportive.

8 January 2014

During a routine inspection

Two people who used the service told us they were asked for their consent before they were offered personal care. The relative of a person who used the service also told us they had seen staff asking permission before providing care. We reviewed records which showed that where people had capacity to do so they consented to the care being offered. We also found that where people were found not to have the capacity to consent to their care the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Two people who used the service and the relative of a person who used the service told us they were happy with the food and refreshments that were available. The people who used the service told us they were given a choice as to what food they wanted to eat. We saw evidence of people being given choices as to what they wished to eat. We found that a nutritious and balanced diet was made available.

Two people who used the service and the relative of a person who used the service told us they felt the home was clean. We found there were systems in place to manage and monitor the prevention and control of infection.

Two people who used the service and the relative of a person who used the service told us there were enough staff available to meet people's needs. We also spoke with a care worker who told us there were enough staff on duty. A review of staffing records showed there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.

Two people who used the service and the relative of a person who used the service told us they knew how to make a complaint and who to complain to. We found there was a complaints procedure in place and staff were aware of their responsibility to report verbal complaints so they could be formally investigated

24, 25 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with a person who used the service and the relative of a person who used the service. They told us people were treated with dignity and respect. They said care workers asked them what help they required and involved them in their care.

People told us they were happy with the standard of care delivered at the home. We also reviewed care records which showed that risk assessments and formal reviews were undertaken to ensure care was effective and safe.

People told us they felt safe at the home. There was a policy on safeguarding and care workers we spoke with understood how to report any suspicions of abuse.

We found that appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the recording of medicines. We found that fridge medications were dated, and that fridge and room temperature were recorded.

People told us they thought care workers knew what they were doing. We found that care workers got appropriate training, supervision and development.

People told us they were asked for their opinion as to the quality of care provided. There were also systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.

We found that people's care records were accurate and fit for purpose. Care plans and risk assessments were recorded appropriately and updated regularly.

16 February 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that their experience was a positive one. They were involved in the decisions about coming into the service and the staff discussed their care and treatment with them. One person said they understood about key working and told us about their key worker and the care that they received from them.

People who spoke with us said that there were plenty of activities to keep them busy and they enjoyed trips outside of the home on a regular basis.

Discussion with people who used the service indicated they preferred the staff to give them their medication and that they usually received this on time and when they needed it.