You are here

Archived: Ifield Park Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 February 2018

The inspection took place over two days, 21 and 24 November 2017 and was unannounced. Ifield Park Care Home provides accommodation for up to 94 people who need nursing or personal care. The home comprised four units, two providing nursing care, one providing residential care and one providing care for people who were living with dementia. The home is situated in a residential area on the outskirts of Crawley. Short stay or respite care is available in each unit. The provider is a charitable organisation.

The registered manager was in attendance on both days of the inspection. 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. At the last inspection on 5 May 2015, the home was rated Good overall. At this inspection we identified two breaches of the regulations and other areas of practice that needed to improve.

Staff were not consistently following the provider’s medicine policy and this meant people were at risk of not receiving their medicines safely. A medicine administration error had not been identified. Some people were receiving PRN (as required) medicines but clear guidance for staff was not consistently provided in all areas of the home. Storage of medicines was not consistently monitored.

Some management systems were not always effective in identifying shortfalls and omissions in the quality of the service. Some records were not complete. This had led to inconsistency in some areas of practice across the home.

One area of the home specialised in providing care and support for people who were living with dementia. This part of the home had been recently refurbished and provided a clean and bright environment. We made a recommendation that the provider seeks further information about best practice in the use of colour and design within the environment to help people with dementia to orientate themselves in time and place. Staff had received training in dementia but our observations were that people were not consistently supported with meaningful occupations that were stimulating for them. We made a recommendation that the provider finds out more about providing meaningful occupation, based upon current best practice in relation to the specialist needs of people living with dementia.

Whilst there were enough staff on duty to care for people safely, the deployment of staff in some areas of the home meant that people waited longer then they should expect for their needs to be met. People in some areas of the home said it took “too long” for their call bells to be answered. Our observations were that at some times of the day staff were not always available to support people. This was identified as an area of practice that needed to improve.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and demonstrated an understanding of the principles of the legislation. However records did not always contain mental capacity assessments that detailed how specific decisions had been made in people’s best interests. This was identified as an area of practice that needed to improve.

People told us they enjoyed the food provided at the home. Their comments included, “The food is lovely,” and “The food is really nice.” Risks associated with people’s nutritional and hydration needs were identified. However our observations were that some people did not always receive the help they needed to eat their food. This was identified as an area of practice that needed to improve.

People told us they felt safe living at the home, one person said, “Yes I feel safe, they look after things for me.” Risks to people were identified, assessed and care plans guided staff in how to manage specific risks. Environmental risks were assessed an

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 2 February 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Staff were not consistent in following safe practice in line with the provider�s policy for administering medicines.

There were enough staff to care for people safely but the deployment of staff in some parts of the home meant that people did not receive care in a timely way.

Risks to people were assessed and managed and staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities to safeguard people. There were robust infection control procedures.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 2 February 2018

The service was not consistently effective.

People�s capacity and consent were not always clearly assessed and documented.

People spoke highly of the food. Some people did not receive the help they needed at mealtime.

Staff received the training and support they needed.

People received support to access health care services.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 February 2018

Staff were kind and caring.

Staff were caring and supported people to be involved in decisions about their care.

Staff respected people�s dignity and maintained their confidentiality.

People were supported to retain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 February 2018

The service was responsive .

Staff cared for people in a personalised way and supported them to maintain relationships that were important to them.

Staff supported people to plan for care at the end of their life.

People felt confident that their concerns or complaints would be listened to and acted upon.

There was a range of organised activities available at the home.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 2 February 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Some management systems and processes were not effective in identifying shortfalls and omissions in the quality of the service.

Firm links with the local community and services had resulted in benefits for people and staff. There was a clear vision for developing the service.

There was a clear leadership structure with identified management roles. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager had submitted notifications to CQC in a timely way.