Archived: Pinewood Tower Rest Home

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.

A visiting health professional whom we met at the last inspection said they had regular contact with the home and that people continued to receive "good care".

Most people were unable to speak with us in depth. We therefore used an observational tool to help us understand people's experiences, as well as making general observations of practice in the home. We also examined records and spoke with the provider and a care worker.

We saw that staff asked people discreetly before providing care, and respected their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, staff acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People experienced care and support that met their needs. We observed that staff supported people in a respectful and unhurried manner. When people became distressed we saw they soon became calmer as staff reassured them and directed them to various activities.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because appropriate arrangements were in place to manage medicines.

People were cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

The provider had an effective system to assess and manage the quality of the service and risks to people's health, safety and welfare.

People were not able to tell us in depth about their experiences. We gathered evidence by observing care, reviewing records, and speaking with the manager and two staff. We also spoke with two relatives and a visiting health care professional.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Their views and experiences were taken into account in how the service was delivered. Relatives told us the home respected people's individuality and dignity.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We found that people's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with individual care plans. Relatives and professionals were complimentary about the care people received.

People using the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff told us that they were well supported by the manager and that they received sufficient relevant training.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. They also had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to people's health, safety and welfare.