Archived: Pinewood Tower Rest Home

Updated 6 August 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 5 and 6 May 2016 and was unannounced. It was undertaken by one inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including notifications of incidents over the past 12 months. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what it does well and the improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we talked with two people who lived at the service, three visiting relatives and a visiting health professional. We also spoke with three care staff, one of the ancillary staff and the owner of the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. As well as observing staff supporting people in communal areas, we reviewed three people’s care records, including assessments, care plans, daily records and medicines administration records. We also reviewed records relating to how the service was run, including four staff files, staff rotas, complaints, accidents and incidents, premises and equipment maintenance, audits and a local authority contract monitoring report.

Updated 6 August 2016

The inspection took place on 5 and 6 May 2016 and was unannounced.

Pinewood Tower Rest Home is a care home for up to 14 adults and specialises in caring for people who are living with dementia or other mental health conditions. Nursing care is not provided. When we inspected, there were 11 people using the service. Rooms are on the ground and first floor, which is accessed by stairs and a stairlift. There is a communal lounge dining room on the ground floor, with access to the garden through a patio door.

The service had a friendly, homely atmosphere. People received the care and support they needed from staff who understood their needs and knew about their backgrounds, achievements, strengths and preferences. People’s health needs were met; where necessary, advice from health and social care professionals was sought and acted upon.

There were sufficient staff on duty to provide care safely and effectively, in an unhurried way. Although busy, staff spent time with people and encouraged them to get involved in individual activities they might find meaningful. They treated people with respect and dignity.

Staff morale was good and staff described the provider as supportive. Staff received the support they needed through training and regular supervision to be able to perform their roles. The provider worked closely with staff, overseeing their practice, providing constructive challenge and ensuring that any necessary improvements were made.

People, relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns with the provider and had confidence that she would take the appropriate action to address these.

Whilst the provider made checks when recruiting staff to ensure they were suitable to work with people in a care setting, she had not always been able to obtain detailed references from former employers. It is not unusual for employers to provide references that state only when an employee started and finished work with them. However, the provider had in one case accepted a reference from a candidate’s colleague rather than their line manager or other person authorised by the former employer to give a reference. We have made a recommendation about obtaining references from former employers.

The premises and equipment were clean and well maintained. The provider was able to tell us about their plan for emergencies such as damage by fire, flooding, utilities failure or inclement weather. However, they had not clearly written this down. We have made a recommendation about having written emergency plan.

The provider and staff had an understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where a person lacked the mental capacity to consent to aspects of their care, the appropriate people had been consulted and decisions made about the care that should be delivered in the person’s best interests. These best interests decisions had been recorded, but the process of assessing the person’s mental capacity had not been. The provider agreed to seek advice about a suitable template for recording mental capacity assessments. We have made a recommendation about recording mental capacity assessments.