Archived: College Green Rest Home

Updated 12 October 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 checked 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.

This inspection took place on 20 September 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors.

Before our inspection on 20 September 2016 we reviewed the information we held on the service. This included notifications we had received from the provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home and previous inspection reports. We also checked to see if any information concerning the care and welfare of people who lived at the home had been received.

We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) we received prior to our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This provided us with information and numerical data about the operation of the service. We used this information as part of the evidence for the inspection. This guided us to what areas we would focus on as part of our inspection.

We spoke with a range of people about the service. They included four people who lived at the home, two visiting healthcare professionals, the registered manager, the homes administrator and five staff members. Prior to our inspection we spoke with the commissioning department at the local authority and Healthwatch Sefton. Healthwatch Sefton is an independent consumer champion for health and social care. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced accessing the service.

During our inspection we used a method called Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This involved observing staff interactions with the people in their care. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at care records of two people, the services training matrix, supervision records of five staff, arrangements for meal provision, records relating to the management of the home and the medication records of four people. We reviewed the services recruitment procedures and checked staffing levels. We also checked the building to ensure it was clean, hygienic and a safe place for people to live.

Updated 12 October 2016

This inspection visit took place on 20 September 2016 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection on 18 June 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

College Green provides accommodation for 21 older people who have dementia. It has 15 single rooms and three double rooms, some with ensuite facilities. Respite care is provided subject to availability. College Green is a converted Victorian house with a front car park and a secluded rear garden. There is a passenger lift to bedrooms on the upper floors. The home is situated in a residential area of Crosby, opposite a park and close to bus routes, local shops and restaurants. At the time of our inspection visit there were 20 people who lived at the home.

There was a registered manager 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 looked at the recruitment of two recently appointed staff members. We found appropriate checks had been undertaken before they had commenced their employment confirming they were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed a structured induction training and development programme was in place. Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed training had been provided to enable them to support people who lived with dementia. We found staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care.

We found the registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

The environment was maintained, clean and hygienic when we visited. No offensive odours were observed by the inspectors. We spoke with four people who lived at the home who all said they were happy with the standard of hygiene at the home. One person said, “My room is lovely and clean.”

We found the environment offered dementia-friendly features to support people with visual, hearing and mobility impairments associated with dementia. The building was well lit and made as much use of natural light as possible. Clear signs (using pictures and words) had been put in place to enable people to move around the building confidently.

We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required. We saw staff members could undertake tasks supporting people without feeling rushed. One person who lived at the home said, “Plenty of girls around to help me when I need them.”

We found equipment used by staff to support people had been maintained and serviced to ensure they were safe for use.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storing in place.

People who were able told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration. One person we spoke with said, “Yes I enjoy all my meals.”

People told us they enjoyed the activities organised by the service. These were arranged both individually and in groups.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. Two visiting healthcare professionals told us communication between them and staff was good and they were impressed with staff knowledge about people’s care needs.

We observed staff supporting people with their care during the inspection visit. We saw they were kind, caring, patient and attentive.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys and care reviews. We found people were satisfied with the service they received.