You are here

Archived: Honresfeld - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 26 October 2015

Honresfeld is a large period building that has been extended to provide 28 single bedrooms for people with physical disabilities who are over the age of 18 years. The home provides 24 hour nursing care and has a wide range of equipment and facilities to assist people with their care needs. This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 1 September 2015. On the day of the inspection 23 people were accommodated at the home.

We last inspected this service on the 25 February 2015 and found the service did not meet the regulations for medicines management, Regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 or for staffing levels, Regulation 22 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. We issued compliance actions that required the provider to make the necessary improvements in relation to the management of medicines and staffing. Following this inspection the service sent us an action plan to tell us how they were going to meet the regulations.

The home had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, on the day of our inspection the registered manager was absent from duty and the deputy manager was on annual leave. The nurse in charge and other administrative staff helped us conduct the inspection.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People who used the service told us that Honresfeld was a safe place to live and they were well looked after.

Staffing levels had improved and were sufficient to meet the needs of people using the service.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and members of staff understood their role in safeguarding vulnerable people from harm.

We found that recruitment procedures were thorough so that people were protected from the employment of unsuitable staff.

The home was clean and appropriate procedures were in place for the prevention and control of infection.

Members of staff had a good understanding of the needs and preferences of people who used the service.

People were registered with a GP and had access to a full range of other health and social care professionals.

Several members of staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) so they knew when an application should be made and how to submit one.

All the people we asked told us the meals were good and they were offered a choice of menu at mealtimes.

People who used the service told us they liked living at the home and received the care and support they needed.

People were supported by staff to make decisions about their care and daily routine.

Leisure activities were routinely organised within the home and in the local community.

Structured Induction training was in place for new members of staff. Training for all staff was ongoing in order to ensure they were kept up to date with current practice.

An effective system for staff supervision so that staff could formally discuss work related issued and training was not in place.

Visitors were welcomed into the home at any time.

Leisure activities were routinely organised within the home and in the local community.

A copy of the complaints procedure was displayed in the home and included in the service user guide supplied to each person on admission to the home.

People who used the service and their representatives were given the opportunity to express their views about the service by completing a questionnaire and attending regular meetings.

In the absence of the registered manager members of staff were supported by the deputy manager, the registered manager from another Leonard Cheshire home and more senior managers from within the company.

The arrangements in place for monitoring and assessing the quality of the service provided had not identified and addressed the shortfalls we found with the management of medicines, care planning and staff supervision.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 26 October 2015

The service was not always safe. Risk assessments and care plans were not reviewed regularly in order to ensure they reflected the current needs of people using the service.

Members of staff knew the action they must take if they witnessed or suspected any abuse.

Recruitment procedures were thorough and protected people who used the service from the appointment of unsuitable staff.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 26 October 2015

The service was usually effective. Members of staff were supported to access training appropriate to their role. However, regular supervision meetings to check staff performance and discuss training needs were not taking place.

People who used the service told us the meals were good and they were given a choice of menu.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 October 2015

The service was caring. We saw that members of staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People who used the service told us they received the care and support they needed

Visitors were welcomed into the home at any time and offered refreshments.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 October 2015

The service was responsive. People who used the service were given the opportunity to take part in activities organised within the home and in the community.

People who used the service were given the opportunity to express their views about the service and plan activities at regular meetings.

A copy of the complaint’s procedure was displayed in the home. No complaints had been made to the CQC or the local authority since the last inspection.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 26 October 2015

The service was usually well-led. The registered manager was absent from duty on the day of this inspection.

Members of staff said the deputy manager was approachable and supportive.

The arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service provided had not addressed the shortfalls we found with the management of medicines and care planning.