You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 January 2017

This inspection took place on 29 November 2016 and was unannounced.

Pelsall Hall is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 41 people. There were 39 people living at the home on the day of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

At our last inspection on 17 February 2016, we found breaches of Regulations of the Health and Social Care 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. We gave the service an overall rating of requires improvement. These breaches related to the provider’s failure to protect people from the risk of harm, consistently meet people’s nutritional needs or establish robust quality assurance systems. The provider sent us an action plan setting out the improvements they intended to make.

At this inspection, we found the provider had made significant improvements to the service. They had taken steps to protect people from harm and abuse. Staff had been given training in, and understood, how to recognise and report abuse. The risks associated with people’s care and support needs had been assessed and plans put in place to manage these. The provider assessed and organised their staffing requirements in order to meet people’s individual needs. People received their medicines safely from trained staff.

Staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs and to communicate with them effectively. The provider protected people’s right under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People had the support they needed to eat and drink. Staff monitored people’s health and helped them to access healthcare services.

Staff adopted a caring approach towards their work and knew the people they supported well. The provider encouraged people’s involvement in care decisions that affected them. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People received care and support that was shaped around their needs and preferences. People and their relatives knew how to complain, if they were unhappy with any aspect of the service provided.

The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture within the service. People and their relatives felt the provider took their views into account. Staff felt well supported and able to challenge working practices. The provider made use of quality assurance systems to drive improvement at the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 January 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. The risks to individuals had been assessed, recorded and plans introduced to manage these. The provider followed safe recruitment practices. People received their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills and knowledge needed to meet people's individual needs. Staff sought people's consent before carrying out care tasks. The provider had assessed and managed any risks associated with people eating and drinking. Staff helped people to access healthcare services.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 January 2017

The service was caring.

Staff adopted a caring and compassionate approach towards their work with people. The provider encouraged people's involvement in care decisions. Staff treated people in a dignified and respectful manner.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care and support that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. People and their relatives understood how to complain about the service, and felt comfortable about doing so. The provider actively sought feedback on the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 January 2017

The service was well-led.

The provider encouraged a positive, ongoing dialogue with people, their relatives and the staff team. Staff felt well supported and had faith in the management team. The provider used quality assurance systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.