Archived: Chine Breeze Court

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

There were 13 people living at Chine Breeze Court on the day of our inspection. We carried out a tour of the premises and spoke with six people who lived at the home, the registered manager and two members of staff.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with during the inspection had no concerns or complaints about the care and support they received, although many people were not able to tell us about their experiences because of a diagnosis of dementia. Some of the people accommodated had complex health and care needs and were being cared for in bed. People were clean, comfortable and well cared for. The staff we spoke with told us about the high standards of care they felt they delivered to people who lived at the home.

Poor record keeping, however, was identified as a risk to people receiving inappropriate or unsafe care.

Other hazards concerning the premises were identified as also posing a risk to the health and safety of people living at the home.

Is the service effective?

People received the care and support they required. Care was planned to meet people's needs although not always well documented.

People with mental capacity to do so, told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met.

The two members of staff and the registered manager we spoke with demonstrated that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. The provider sought consent from people and or their relatives in relation to their care. The manager was aware of what constituted a deprivation of liberty and they were aware of the new Supreme Court ruling; however, no applications had been submitted to the Local authority. An application for an urgent authorisation for a DoLS was submitted on the day of our inspection and the registered manager told us that applications for other people with dementia would be made.

Is the service caring?

People who lived at the home spoke positively about the care they received and about the staff. We observed interactions between staff and people who lived at the home and there appeared good relationships with each other.

The staff we spoke with were motivated and proud of the care they gave to people and we saw that staff were kind and caring in their approach with people.

Is the service responsive?

People accessed the services of healthcare professionals as required. Records of visits from healthcare professionals were kept. For example, we found that visits from chiropodists, district nurses, opticians and GPs were documented.

Is the service well led?

Staff we spoke with told us that the registered manager was very supportive and accessible. The registered manager also spent time working alongside staff to provide direct supervision of the care provided at the home.

A person's relative told us "the care my relative receives is excellent quality" and people we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care they received. We found that people's needs were assessed and that care was planned and delivered to meet their needs and to promote their safety and welfare. We found that the provider had suitable arrangements in place to manage people's medicines.

A person we spoke with told us "all the staff are so helpful" another person said "staff are very good they help me with all kinds of things". We have asked the provider to ensure that staff are adequately supported through a process of supervision, appraisal and training to carry out their role effectively.

We found that people's records were not always accurate.

We spoke with seven people who lived at the home about their experiences of living at the home. They told us that the home was kept clean and hygienic. They said they felt safe when equipment such as hoists were used to help and support them safely. They told us they believed that care staff were competent and had received appropriate training. People said they thought there were enough care staff on duty at all times. They told us they were often asked if they thought anything could be done to improve the service they received.

We spoke with two visiting relatives who expressed similar views to the people who lived at the home.

We found that the provider had improved their arrangements for the control and prevention of infections.

Refurbishment of the home's kitchen had almost been completed and new storage units and work surfaces had been installed.

We saw care staff transferred people who had limited mobility safely and used hoists to do this. We also saw that the care staff had received relevant training about the use of hoists.

We saw that measures had been put into place to manage risks to people's welfare that had not been identified by the provider at our last inspection of the home.

At the time of our inspection 18 people were living at Chine Breeze Court. We spoke with six of the people who lived at the home and four relatives. Everyone we talked with spoke highly of the care provided by the home; attitude of the staff; and food the home provided.

We saw that staff were were polite, respectful and promoted people's dignity. There were mixed views expressed by people about whether there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty.

The home provided well balanced and nutritious meals. We saw that measures were in place to manage the needs of people identified at risk of malnutrition. We noted that the storage of food in a refrigerator was unsafe. We also found that kitchen fittings needed to be cleaned and some needed to be replaced or repaired.

Systems and procedures were in place to support people safely with their medication.

There were also systems and arrangements in place to ensure that risks to people's welfare and safety were managed; to prevent infection control and ensure the premises were clean and hygienic; and to monitor the quality of the service the home provided. We found that all these systems and arrangements needed to be strengthened to include more checks that relevant procedures were followed and equipment worked and was safe.