Falcon House Care Home

Falcon House accommodate up to 46 people. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people living at the service. The home is located over two floors with communal lounge and dining area on both levels. The service was undergoing a full refurbishment at the time of our inspection which helped with the overall cleanliness of the building.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The provider had encouraged window visits for people and their relatives during the outbreak of COVID-19.

¿ Staff had received training in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and we saw this was accessible throughout the home and staff used it in accordance with the most up to date guidance.

¿ Staff had received further training in COVID-19 and infection control procedures.

¿ The service had replaced almost all carpets and replaced them with laminate flooring, this meant that it was easier to keep clean and reduced the risk of contamination.

¿ The infection control policy was up to date. We reviewed audits which reflected actions had been taken to maintain the standards within the home. There was a Coronavirus Policy and procedure and also national guidance which was kept updated.

¿ Only essential medical professionals had entered the home during the outbreak apart from relatives who were allowed to visit when people were receiving end of life care.

¿ The registered manager had also been ill and a temporary manager had been put in to support the staff and people using the service during the time of the outbreak.

¿ The registered manager told us that they had continually supported the staff, those using the service and their relatives during the time when visitors were not able to go into the home.

Falcon House Care Home is a residential care service for older people and those with dementia. Falcon House can accommodate up to 46 people. At the time of our inspection there were 45 living there.

People’s experience of using this service:

People’s experience of the service was positive. People felt safe and the registered manager ensured that enough staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff were well trained and training was kept up to date and monitored by the registered manager.

Systems were in place to support people to take their medicines safely. Staff received relevant training and felt well supported. People were asked for their consent to their care and appropriate steps were taken to support people who lacked capacity to make decisions.

People were consulted on all aspects of their care and support and they were involved in their care planning. Relatives were also asked to contribute and discuss care needs where appropriate.

People had excellent relationships with the staff and the registered manager. They felt happy with their care and felt that the staff understood their needs and what aspects of their care they would like support with.

People told us they felt well cared for by staff who treated them with dignity and respect. People enjoyed the range of activities on offer and they were always given a choice of things to do.

An open and transparent culture enabled people and staff to speak up if they wished to. The registered manager provided goof leadership and understood the needs of the service and the people living there.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Published October 2017)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection.

Falcon House Care Home was last inspected in August 2015 and was rated Good. At this inspection, the service remained Good.

The provider is registered to provide accommodation for up to 46 older people living with or without dementia in the service over two floors. There were 45 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

A registered manager was in post and was available throughout the inspection. 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.

Staff knew how to keep people safe and understood their duty to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks were mostly well managed so that people were protected from avoidable harm, though falls risk assessments were not always accurately completed and the bedrails risk assessment required development to effectively consider all risks of the use of bedrails. Mattresses to minimise the risk of people acquiring skin damage were not always set to the weight of the person using them.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices. Medicines were managed safely and staff mostly followed correct infection control practices.

Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received sufficient to eat and drink but their mealtime experience in one part of the service could be improved. External professionals were involved in people’s care as appropriate and adaptations had been made to the design of the home to better support people living with dementia.

Staff were kind and knew people well. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care. Advocacy information was made available to people.

People received care that respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. People could receive visitors without unnecessary restriction.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care records contained sufficient information to support staff to meet people’s individual needs. A complaints process was in place and staff knew how to respond to complaints.

People and their relatives were involved or had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. Staff told us they would be confident raising concerns with the management team and that appropriate action would be taken.

The registered manager and provider were meeting their regulatory responsibilities. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. New more detailed audit tools were to be introduced to further improve monitoring of the quality of the service.

We saw care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People using the service offered many positive comments about the care and support they received. One person told us that staff were nice and respectful. Another person told us that they felt a lot better since they came to live at the home.

We found the provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained.

All five people spoken with told us they were happy with the environment and they felt that it was well maintained. One person said, 'It's a nice environment, I can look out the windows and see a long way, we have a good view. It is comfortable here.'

We looked at the recruitment records of five members of staff. We saw appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

We spoke with four people about the recruitment processes. They all told us that new staff were introduced to them when they first started working at the home. One person said, 'New staff are introduced, which is good as we can get to know them.'

We saw the complaints procedure and found this to be clear and it contained sufficient information to enable people to make a complaint if they wished to do so. All six of the people we spoke with told us they were happy but if they needed to make a compliant they felt this would be listened to and acted upon.

We found there had been an improvement in record keeping and these were now more accurate and fit for purpose.

We found there had been improvements since we last visited in respect of care planning, medicine management and the quality monitoring systems.

People spoken with were happy and settled living at the home. One person said, 'Its OK I have no where else to go,' The food is OK you get a choice what you want to eat.' Another person said, 'I dress myself, but can get help when I need it.'

We spoke to one relative during our visit. They told us they were involved with the care planning and felt their family member's needs were being met. They said they had no concerns regarding the care and would raise it with the manager if they did. The relative told us their family member was well kept and they knew they had two care workers to assist them.

We saw that people were able to make their own choices and decisions and spend their time as they wished.

We found some records were not always maintained as required and there were some gaps in the daily reporting logs.