Archived: Cartlidge House

Cartlidge House provides accommodation and Nursing or personal care for up to 54 people. On the day of our inspection, 43 people were receiving services, some of whom were living with dementia.

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

People did not always receive safe care and support as staff members did not always follow the guidelines in place to safely support people.

Staff members had not always been provided with the training they needed to safely support people.

People’s care and support plans did not always give the necessary information to staff to respond to their needs and preferences.

The providers quality checks were not always effective in identifying improvements which were needed to drive good care.

People were protected from the risks of harm and abuse as the staff team had been trained to recognise potential signs and understood what to do to safely support people.

Staff members were aware of the necessary actions they should take in the event of an emergency.

Staff members followed effective infection prevention and control procedures when supporting people. Staff members had access to, and used, appropriate personal protection equipment.

People received safe support with their medicines by staff members who had been assessed as competent.

The provider supported staff members through structured one-on-one supervision sessions.

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 at Cartlidge House supported this practice.

People had access to additional healthcare services when required.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet by a staff team which knew their individual preferences.

People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had developed positive relationships.

People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like age, gender and disability.

The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or those close to them.

The provider, and management team, had good links with the local communities within which people lived.

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 18 April 2017).

Enforcement

We have identified one breach or regulations in relation to people not being safely supported.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were protected from harm. Staff understand how to safeguard people and manage risks effectively. People received support from sufficient staff that have been recruited safely. People have support from staff to safely administer medicines as prescribed.

People are supported by staff that understand their needs. Staff are knowledgeable and have regular updates to training. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People have a good choice of food and drinks have access to support to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People told us staff were caring and they had positive relationships with staff. People are involved in all aspects of their care and are encouraged to maintain their independence. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained by staff.

People were supported by staff that understood their needs and preferences. People were able to spend time doing things they enjoyed and were supported by staff to take part in activities. People understood how to make a complaint and we could see complaints were used to improve the quality of the service people received.

People told us the service was well led and they felt able to engage with the management team. Staff told us they could access support from the management team. We saw the provider had systems in place to ensure people received a good quality service.

People who used the service and their representatives told us they were happy with the care and support they received.

The care plans we sampled were disorganised and were not easy to get an overall picture of how staff should meet people's needs. The manager told us care plans were in the process of being changed and would be much clearer than existing care plans. People who used the service and their representatives told us they were able to contribute to their monthly reviews. We saw evidence of this.

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

There were suitable arrangements in place which ensured the safe management of medicines.

There was a robust recruitment procedure in place to ensure people were protected. This meant that only people who were fit to work in health and social care were appointed.

People were cared for by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. People told us their needs were met and staff were, “Kind and Caring”. The manager agreed to review staffing arrangements on Tree Tops and Rosewood at busy times of the day to ensure people's health, safety and welfare was maintained.

We spoke with 11 out of 54 people who used the service and one visitor, and observed staff interaction with other people in the four units. We spoke with five staff and two managers. We looked at two people's care records and medication records for other people, records about staff and the running of the home.

People were complimentary about the way staff supported them to maintain their dignity. We were told, "the staff are very kind'; 'everybody's happy.' Most people liked the food, the lively and homely atmosphere and said there were enough activities and worship to take part in. Consent was sought or best interest care decisions were made with people's representatives and professionals. Medication and falls risks had been reviewed with health professionals in line with national best practice. The home was clean and people's health was protected by high standards of hygiene.

Staff and managers felt well supported and had professional development for their roles. There were no complaints, however events that mattered to people could be monitored through the complaints process. There were robust systems to maintain quality, health and safety. Record-keeping had improved and the provider regularly monitored compliance.