You are here

Archived: The Firs Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The Firs Residential Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and non-nursing care for up to 29 people. At the time of our inspection there were 23 older people living in the home. Each person had their own bedroom and en -suite facilities were provided. There was a dining room, conservatory and lounge for people and their visitors to use.

This unannounced inspection took place on 12 January 2017.

At the time of the inspection 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.

At the last inspection on 17 March 2016 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the staffing levels, fire safety and complying with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act, and these actions had been completed.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The provider was not acting in accordance with the requirements of the MCA including the DoLS. The provider was able to demonstrate how they supported people to make decisions about their care. Where people were unable to do so, there were records showing that decisions were being taken in their best interests. DoLS applications had been submitted to the appropriate authority. This meant that people did not have restrictions placed on them without the correct procedures being followed.

Staff knew what actions to take if they thought that anyone had been harmed in any way. Local safeguarding procedures had been followed when necessary. Risk assessments reduced risks to people without restricting them from doing the things they enjoyed.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. The recruitment process was followed to ensure that people were only employed after satisfactory checks had been carried out. Staff received the training they required to meet people’s needs and confirmed that they felt supported in their roles.

Staff were kind and compassionate when working with people. They knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences, likes and dislikes. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Visitors were made to feel welcome to the home and staff supported people to visit their family members when needed.

Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed. People received their medication as prescribed. Medication was stored securely.

People were provided with a choice of food and drink that they enjoyed. When needed people received the support they needed to eat and drink. This was carried out in a respectful manner.

Staff supported people to maintain their interests and their links with the local community to promote social inclusion. Measures were taken to promote people’s safety if they wanted to access the community on their own.

Care plans and risk assessments gave staff the information they required to meet people’s individual care and support needs. The care provided was based on people’s preferences.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff or the registered manager.

There was an effective quality assurance process in place to identify when any improvements were needed. The registered provider obtained the views from the people, their relatives and staff about the quality of the service and took action when improvements were suggested.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of the procedures to follow if they suspected someone may have been harmed.

Risks to people had been assessed and reduced where possible.

People received their medication as prescribed. Medication was stored securely.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People�s rights were being promoted or protected.

Staff were supported and trained to provide people with individual care.

People had access to a range of healthcare services to support them with maintaining their health and wellbeing.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was caring.

The care provided was based on people�s individual needs and choices.

Members of staff were kind and caring and knew people well.

Relationships with families and friends were promoted.

People�s rights to privacy and dignity were valued.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People had been involved in writing their care plans. Staff had an good understanding of people�s social and support needs and what they valued.

People�s care and support needs were planned for and evaluated to ensure they met their current needs.

There was a system in place to receive and manage people�s compliments, suggestions or complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was well-led.

Staff felt confident to discuss any concerns they had with the registered manager and were confident to question colleagues� practice if they needed to.

The service had an open culture and welcomed ideas for improvement.

Audits and action plans ensured that the quality of the service provided was being constantly reviewed and acted upon.