You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Staley House Care Home on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Staley House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 15 April 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Staley House Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 27 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people using the service.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider was following best practice guidance in terms of ensuring visitors to the home did not spread COVID-19. Staff were adhering to personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance and practices, and there was a space for staff to change before and after their shift.

Communal areas were well spaced and people, with support from staff were encouraged to maintain social distancing. Clear plans were in place for those who were required to self-isolate. For those people who struggled with isolation additional support was provided.

The provider had created a safe and dedicated visiting area to allow people to see and speak to their friends and relatives in line with the latest government guidance. The room was well-ventilated and cleaned between visitors.

Staff continued to support people to access healthcare, and arrangements were in place should people need to attend hospital safely.

Inspection carried out on 7 January 2020

During a routine inspection

Staley House Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 27 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were protected from the risk of harm, abuse and discrimination. Safe systems of recruitment were in place and people told us they felt safe. Risks were well managed. Medicines were stored and administered safely. The home was clean and well maintained.

People’s needs were assessed before they started to live at the home. There were enough staff to meet people’s individual needs and staff received the induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles. People's nutritional and health needs were met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Everyone spoke highly of the staff and the care and support they received. One person said, “We have a laugh, it’s fun. It’s a happy place to be.” Staff were very pleasant, professional, friendly and caring. They knew people really well. People were treated with respect and dignity; their independence was encouraged.

Plans of care were person centred and identified what was important to and for the person. There was a range of activities for people to join in. Complaints were well managed, but people told us they were very happy with the service.

There were good systems of quality assurance checks and audits. Everyone was positive about the registered manager and the way the service was managed and organised. The registered manager knew people very well and was committed to providing responsive, person centred care and support. People knew the registered manager and spoke highly of them. The provider had notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of significant events such as safeguarding concerns.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on our published methodology.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 24 April 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 24 and 26 April 2017 and was unannounced on day one of the inspection.

Staley House is situated in the Stalybridge area of Tameside Manchester. The home provides care, support and accommodation for up to 27 people who require personal care. All rooms provide single accommodation and 12 of the rooms have the facility for an en-suite toilet. Bedrooms are located over two floors and the first floor can be accessed using a passenger lift or staircase. The home also provides communal bathrooms and toilets. In addition to this there are two communal lounges, one of which has a separate quiet area. The rear lounge overlooks a patio and secure gardens with space for people to sit outside. The building is situated in its own grounds and has off road parking. At the time of our inspection 26 people were living at the home.

We previously inspected this service under a different registered provider. At this inspection a new provider was registered with the Care Quality Commission in March 2017.

A registered manager was 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.

We saw positive and caring interactions between care workers and people who used the service and people were supported by sufficient numbers of care workers to make sure their health and wellbeing was promoted.

Arrangements were in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse. The service had an up- to-date safeguarding policy and procedure in place. Care workers spoken with were able to give a good account of the risks associated with vulnerable adults, the safeguards in place to minimise these risks and provided an explanation how they would recognise and report abuse.

We saw records to show care workers had received regular supervision or an annual appraisal to help make sure they were carrying out their duties safely and effectively.

Weekly cleaning audits were completed and up to date. However we saw some moving and handling equipment used to assist in transferring people required cleaning to maintain a good standard of cleanliness and help to prevent cross infection.

Care workers used the protective personal equipment (PPE) in place such as disposable aprons and gloves when delivering care to people. This meant people were protected against the risk of cross infection.

Auditing systems in place helped to monitor that the quality of services provided were fully utilised to make sure the service provided was safe, effective and well led.

Care workers we spoke with told us they had undergone a thorough recruitment process. They told us following their employee induction, training appropriate to the work they carried out was available to them.

Peoples nutritional and hydration needs were being met. People had choice about what they wanted to eat and drink and where required they were supported to eat their meals with prompts from care workers.

Care workers had developed a good rapport and understanding of the people who used the service and treated the people and their belongings with respect.

People were supported to take part in hobbies and interests and individual or group daily leisure activities were provided for people.

A complaints policy was in place and copies of the policy were displayed in communal areas in the home. We examined the services complaints log and found where complaints or comments had been made records were kept of the actions taken to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the complainant.

Inspection carried out on 16 December 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Staley House on 16 December 2015, our visit was unannounced.

The service was previously inspected on 26 August 2014 when no breaches of legal requirements were found.

Staley House is situated in the Stalybridge area of Tameside. The home provides care, support and accommodation for up to 27 people who require personal care without nursing. All rooms provide single accommodation. 12 of the rooms are en-suite. Bedrooms are located over 2 floors and the first floor is accessed using a passenger lift or staircase. There are two communal bathrooms, six communal toilets and two lounges, one of which has a separate quiet area. The rear lounge overlooks the patio and large well kept, secure gardens with areas for people to sit outside. The building is situated in its own grounds and has off road parking.

At the time of our inspection 26 people were living at Staley House Care Home.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

We identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full report.

The laundry room in the basement was found to have shortfalls in ensuring the safe handling of items and improvements were needed to safeguard people from the risk of cross infection.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to identify the risks to people’s health, welfare and safety. A full building/ environmental audit would have highlighted potential environmental risks, as identified during this inspection.

People, relatives, and staff spoke highly of the service; one person’s relative told us, “They’ve brought mum on such a lot”.

Visiting professionals were also complimentary of the service and were confident that staff follow their guidance when providing care. One visiting professional told us, “Staff follow direction very well”. Staff we spoke with were aware how to safeguard people and were able to demonstrate their knowledge around safeguarding procedures and how to inform the relevant authorities if they suspected anyone was at risk from harm.

Safe and appropriate recruitment and selection practices had been used to ensure that suitable staff had been employed to care for vulnerable people.

Observations made showed us consent was always sought before care was provided, people were treated with respect and dignity by staff who were knowledgeable and competent in their role.

Documentation at the home showed us that people received appropriate input from other health care professionals, such as dentistry and podiatry, to ensure they received the care and support they needed. Additionally, people were supported to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and had their nutritional needs met.

People received good quality care from respectful and attentive staff. People looked well cared for in their appearance and people told us the staff were very kind and caring.

People told us that they were supported to make their own choices and people had been encouraged to personalise their own rooms.

Feedback was sought on a regular basis and the registered manager actively encouraged people and their relatives to have their say on how the service could be improved.

People and staff were complimentary about the qualities of the registered manager.

Personal care plan records showed that individual risks were identified, assessed, managed and reviewed to ensure any risks were minimised.

Staff were attentive and responded to people in a sensitive, kind and caring manner. We observed positive interactions, including laughing, singing and one person told a staff member that they loved them whilst they held one another’s hands.

Inspection carried out on 26 August 2014

During a routine inspection

An inspector visited this service on 26 August 2014 to carry out an unannounced inspection. Prior to our visit we looked at all the information we hold on this service to help us to plan and focus on our five questions: is the service safe; is the service effective; is the service caring; is the service responsive; and is the service well led?

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People living at Staley House Care Home and the visitors we spoke with told us staff respected people�s privacy and dignity and supported people in a way that suited their individual needs and personal preferences.

Each person had an individual care file that included risk assessments and a care plan that described how to meet their individual care needs.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and relevant policies were in place to support staff when dealing with any safeguarding matters. People spoken with told us they felt safe and visitors told us they were satisfied their relative was safe from harm. One comment was �The staff are very friendly and kind, I can�t fault the staff in any way.�

During our inspection visit we looked at the premises which were fit for purpose and we saw there were systems in place to manage the on-going maintenance of the home.

We looked at three staff recruitment records and saw that the provider had robust recruitment procedures in place and all appropriate pre-employment safety checks had been undertaken prior to the person starting work. This meant that people were cared for and supported by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

Is the service effective?

Prior to people being admitted into the home the manager or deputy manager visited people in their own environment to carry out an assessment of their needs. This was to ensure the home was suitable to facilitate meeting all of those assessed needs unless the admission was an emergency admission. The service had an appropriate emergency admission policy in place.

The manager said that if possible people were encouraged to visit the home and spend some time meeting staff and other people living at the home before a decision was made about moving in.

Staff told us told us that the staff team all worked well together and provided a high standard of care.

Discussions with the manager and staff and observing care delivery demonstrated that the staff on duty had the relevant knowledge about each person�s needs and the relevant skills to support and meet those needs.

Is the service caring?

The atmosphere in the home felt relaxed and friendly. From our observations we saw that care staff had a good understanding of people's individual needs and personalities. We saw that staff were kind and sensitive in their approach to people. People commented, �The staff do look after us but they are very busy� and �They [the staff] do treat me nicely and they are very good�.

We observed that people looked well cared for and were appropriately dressed.

One regular visitor to the service told us, �They [the staff] have got to know {[their relative] very well and I have no worries at all about the care�.� Another visitor said �I would recommend this this home it is very good.�.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that where appropriate the service had accessed advice and support from other health care professionals. For example, we saw evidence of visits from the GP, the district nurse, mental health teams, the chiropodist and people were supported to attend relevant hospital appointments.

We also saw that where people presented with behaviour that challenged, the manager had liaised with the person�s community psychiatric nurse about the best action to take. This meant that people using the service received co-ordinated care and support.

The service had systems in place to ensure that people were regularly consulted about their views and ideas on how the home should be run. This was done by means of regular informal chats with people and satisfaction surveys. We saw evidence of these surveys being carried out on a regular basis, following which an analysis of the findings would be undertaken by the providers and a report produced.

Regular visitors to the home told us they were very happy with the standard of care and support provided to their relative. Comments included, �Everything here is really good, they always get the doctor right away if needed and inform me straight away� and �They treat me and [their relative] very well.�

Is the service well led?

The service was led by a manager that is registered with the Care Quality Commission.

The manager was described by staff and visitors as approachable and supportive. One visitor said �If I had any worries I would tell the manager straight away, she is very, very good.�

We saw there were systems in place to monitor the quality of service and identify risk. This would help to ensure that people received a safe and effective service.

Inspection carried out on 26 June 2013

During a routine inspection

Not all of the residents of Staley House Care Home were able to communicate effectively, due to dementia related conditions.Those we did speak with were positive about the care they received. One said: "I'm comfortable here. It's a nice place."

We spoke with two visitors. One said: "Wonderful care. They've been really really good. I would come here myself."

The other visitor raised some issues about the quality of the care, which are described in this report.

On our last visit in February 2013 we found some issues relating to the handling and storage of medicines. We found that the home had dealt with those issues and was now meeting the standard relating to medicines.

We found that the staff were well trained and generally well-supported, although we identified some potential improvements to the system of annual appraisals.

We found that the complaints procedure was advertised and that recent complaints had been handled appropriately.

Inspection carried out on 21 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that Staley House had good systems in place to establish that people had capacity to consent to their care and treatment. We heard care staff offer people choices such as what food they wanted to eat or how people wanted to spend their time. We found that staff made every effort to include people in decisions about how their care was delivered and to seek their consent.

One person living at the home said �They [care staff] are very good, they get the doctor if I�m ill and they give me my tablets�.

We spoke with a relative of a person living at the home. They told us �staff are very good and seem very attentive�. And �The care is good�.

People told us they chose which activities they wanted to join.

Some people liked to spend time in their bedroom. We saw that people had brought personal items of furniture with them when they moved into Staley House. One person said having her own furniture around her made her feel Staley House was her new home.

One person said of Staley House, �It�s a good place to live.�

We had some concerns about the way medication was being managed in the home and asked the manager to undertake regular audits of medicines stored in the home, to ensure medicines were handled safely, to make sure people received their medicines and ensure that people were not at risk due to unsafe management of medicines.

Inspection carried out on 10 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People living at Staley House told us that they felt well cared for, and all their comments about the staff team were positive.

People told us that the staff were very helpful and always willing to listen. They told us that they felt confident in raising any issues of concern directly with the staff or the management team.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)