You are here

Blakesley House Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The inspection took place on 18 July 2018 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 28 July 2016 when we rated the service good overall and in all the five key questions. At the comprehensive inspection on 18 July 2018 we rated the service ‘good’ overall but we made a recommendation in relation to the environment.

Blakesley House Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Blakesley House Nursing Home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 22. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people living at the home.

The provider is registered as an Individual and as such is not required to have a registered manager in place. 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 provider runs and manages the service.

Not all the environment was suitable for people living at the service, particularly those living with dementia. The garden was bare and uninviting, not easily accessible and people were unable to use it appropriately.

The service was clean and had systems to protect people by the prevention and control of infection, however, liquid soap and hand gel were not topped up in the staff toilet and entrance hall so these would be readily available when needed.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Checks were carried out during the recruitment process to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

There were arrangements in place for the safe management of people’s medicines and regular checks were undertaken.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities and had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People’s nutritional and healthcare needs had been assessed and were met.

People were supported by staff who were suitably trained, supervised and appraised.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Care plans addressed each person’s individual needs, including what was important to them, and how they wanted to be supported.

People were able to take part in a range of activities. They were cared for in a way that took account of their diversity, values and human rights.

People’s end of life wishes were discussed and recorded.

People living at the home, their relatives and stakeholders told us that the manager and senior team were approachable and supportive. People and their relatives were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure that areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

The manager kept themselves informed of developments within the social care sector and cascaded important information to the rest of the staff team.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was safe.

The provider had infection control procedures in place and the home was clean and odour free, however the liquid soap in the staff toilet and hand gel in the entrance hall had not been topped up.

Staff had received training in the administration of medicines and there were effective systems in place to ensure that medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that only suitable staff were appointed to work with people who used the service.

There were appropriate procedures in place for the safeguarding of people who used the service and these were being followed.

The risks to people�s safety were identified and managed appropriately. The provider had processes in place for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was not always effective.

The garden was neglected, not easily accessible and did not meet the needs of people using the service.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities and had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People�s nutritional and healthcare needs had been assessed and were met.

People were cared for by staff who were suitably trained, supervised and appraised.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff interacted with people in a friendly and caring way. Relatives and professionals felt that people using the service were well cared for.

Care plans contained people's personal history, likes and dislikes. People were supported by caring staff who respected their dignity, human rights and diverse needs.

Where people were able to make choices, they told us that staff respected these.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was responsive.

A range of activities were organised and external entertainers visited regularly. The manager had made some improvement in the provision of specific activities for people living with dementia.

Assessments were carried out before people were admitted to ensure the service could provide appropriate care. Care plans were developed from the assessments and reviewed regularly.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was well-led.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

There were regular meetings for staff and people who used the service which encouraged openness and the sharing of information.

People and their relatives were sent questionnaires to ask their views in relation to the quality of the care provided.

People, relatives and professionals we spoke with thought the home was well-led and that the staff and senior team were approachable and worked well as a team.

The staff told us they felt supported by the manager and there was good communication among the staff team.