You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Peasmarsh Place. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 October 2016

Peasmarsh Place provides care and support for up to 24 older people with care needs associated with older age. The needs of people varied, some people were mainly independent others had low physical and health needs and others had a mild dementia and memory loss. The care home provided some respite care and could meet more complex care needs with the support of community nurses which included end of life care.

At the time of this inspection 17 people were living in the service. This inspection took place on

28 July and 4 August 2016 and was unannounced.

The service had a registered manager. 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 quality monitoring systems needed further development to ensure they were used to ensure best practice and to identify shortfalls and demonstrate effective responses. This included the use of suitable guidelines for medicine administration and accurate records for the application of topical creams to demonstrate staff delivered these in a consistent way. In addition, some care documentation was not completed to record the care required and provided. This could lead to staff not having up to date information on people’s needs and care provided.

Organisational policies and procedures and supporting audit systems did not ensure best practice was followed in all areas. For example, satisfaction surveys were used but information gathered from these was not recorded and used in a systematic way to improve the service. This was identified to the registered manager as an area for improvement.

People were looked after by staff who knew and understood their individual needs well. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and supported them to maintain their independence. People’s dignity was protected and staff were respectful. All feedback received from people and their relatives was positive about the care, the atmosphere in the service and the approach of the staff and registered manager.

All feedback from visiting professionals was positive. They told us staff worked with them to improve outcomes for people.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and knew what actions to take if they believed people were at risk of abuse. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Senior staff had an understanding of DoLS and what may constitute a deprivation of liberty and followed correct procedures to protect people’s rights.

Staff were provided with a full induction and training programme which supported them to meet the needs of people. Staffing arrangements ensured staff worked in such numbers, with the appropriate skills that people’s needs could be met in a timely and safe fashion.

People were given information on how to make a complaint and said they were comfortable to raise a concern or give feedback. A complaints procedure and comment cards were readily available for people to use.

Staff monitored people’s nutritional needs and responded to them. Preferences and specific diets were provided. People were supported to maintain their own friendships and relationships. Staff related to people as individuals and took an interest in what was important to them.

Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives and staff. People were encouraged to share their views on a daily basis and satisfaction surveys had been completed. The management style fostered an open culture that listened to people and staff views.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was safe.

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely by staff who were suitably trained. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. .

People told us they were happy living in the home and relatives felt people were safe. Staff had received training on how to safeguard people from abuse and were clear about how to respond to any allegation of abuse.

The environment was well maintained to ensure people’s safety.

People had individual assessments of potential risks to their health and welfare. Staff managed these risks properly to make sure people remained as safe as possible.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and how to involve appropriate people, such as relatives and professionals, in the decision making process if required.

Staff were suitably trained and supported to deliver care in a way that responded to people’s changing needs.

People had access to external healthcare professionals, such as the GP and community nurses as necessary because staff ensured appropriate referrals were made.

People’s nutritional needs were well monitored ant they had food and drink that met their needs and preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. Staff knew people well and had good relationships with them. Relatives were made to feel welcome in the service.

Everyone was very positive about the care provided by staff.

People were encouraged to make their own choices and had their privacy and dignity respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was responsive.

People told us they were able to make individual and everyday choices and staff responded to these choices.

People had the opportunity to engage in activities and entertainment.

People were aware of how to make a complaint and people felt that they had their views listened to and responded to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

Quality monitoring systems were not well established to identify all areas for improvement and monitoring.

The registered manager and senior staff in the service were seen as approachable and supportive.

Staff and people spoke positively of the management team’s leadership and approach.