You are here

Archived: Heanton Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 January 2015

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 and 13 November 2014. There were 49 people living at the service. When we last inspected on 28 July 2014 in response to some concerns raised by family whose relative lived at Heanton, there were a number of areas where improvements were needed. These were breaches in regulation and included care planning, infection control, equipment, staffing levels, records and quality assurance. Following this inspection the registered manager sent us an action plan showing how she intended to make improvements and provided a timescale for those improvements. We used this information as part of this inspection to check how well embedded any new ways of working were and whether this had impacted on the quality of care and support people were receiving. At this inspection they had addressed all the areas that needed improving.

Heanton is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 58 people. The home is divided into two units, Williamson unit on the ground floor and Chichester unit on the first floor. Both units provide nursing care for older people living with dementia with the Williamson unit supporting people with higher physical nursing needs.

There is a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Some relatives fed back that the service was not always responsive to people’s needs and we observed one incident which could have been prevented if staff had been more responsive and ensured a staff presence in the dining areas at the start of the meal time. The registered manager agreed to address the issues identified.

Since the last inspection, there had been improvements in infection control and in ensuring the environment smelt fresh and was clean. The provider had replaced much of the old flooring and some of the furnishings, which had improved the appearance and odour at the home. Staff were aware of the infection control policies and procedures and were following them to help prevent any spread of infections. The registered manager had ensured there was a ‘breakout box’, which detailed what staff needed to do in the event of an outbreak of an infectious disease.

Bathroom facilities were being upgraded. The service were in the process of completing a refurbished wet room on the ground floor and there were more plans to refurbish other bathroom areas to enable people to have more accessible washing facilities in clean and comfortable bathrooms. Wheelchairs were being cleaned and maintained along with other equipment and systems were in place to ensure this was checked.

Care was well planned and being delivered by a staff group who understood people’s needs. Staff were available in sufficient numbers and had the experience and competencies to work with people with complex needs. Our observations showed staff providing care and support in a kind and compassionate way. Staff had on going training and supervision to ensure they were working effectively. Where issues were identified with staffs’ attitude or ethos, this was picked up quickly and actions taken to address any concerns.

People were assisted to engage in a variety of activities with two full time activity coordinators. This service had been expanded to cover evenings and Saturdays. There was an activities room with a wide range of equipment to help stimulate memories and discussion.

People were supported to enjoy a relaxed mealtime. Where people needed support to eat and drink, staff provided this in a kind and respectful way.

There was a strong management team in place which staff and relatives had confidence in. Staff felt their views and opinions were listened to. Systems were in place to review the quality of care and support being delivered and to gain the views of people, their relatives and staff to help improve the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 23 February 2016

The service was not safe.

People were at risk because there were times when staffing levels fell below what the provider had assessed was needed to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Risk assessments were not always in place for pressure care or did not include all the relevant information, which put people at increased risk.

Staff knew understood their responsibilities to safeguard vulnerable people and to report abuse.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2016

Some aspects of service were not effective.

People were supported by staff who were trained and supported to meet their health care needs, but some staff said they needed more specific training.

People were not always supported to access healthcare services to meet their needs in a timely way.

Most people were given support to eat and drink. Where people were at increased risk of malnutrition or dehydration, staff were aware of this and made sure they food and drink regularly and nutritional supplements, when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 January 2015

The service was caring. People’s relatives gave positive feedback about the caring nature of staff.

Staff were particularly caring in the way they worked with people with complex needs, showing compassion and patience. This included the delivery of end of life care.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 28 January 2015

Some aspects of the service were not responsive. A few areas were identified where the service could be more responsive to people’s needs, which was being addressed by the registered manager. This included ensuring staff maintained people’s respect and dignity at all times, ensuring people were clean and tidy following meal times.

People’s concerns and complaints were dealt with swiftly and comprehensively.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 January 2015

The service was well led. There was a strong management and leadership team whom the staff and relatives had confidence in.

Systems were in place to review the quality of care provided taking into account the views of people, their relatives and staff.

Improvements had been made in ensuring the environment was clean and infection control procedures were followed. Systems were in place to ensure the service was safe and quality monitoring was embedded.