Archived: Catterall House Residential Care Home

Updated 31 August 2017

We carried out this comprehensive inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 comprehensive inspection was carried out on 18 July 2017 and the 21 July 2017 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has experience of health and social care. The expert by experience who participated in this inspection had experience of older people. At the time of the inspection visit 14 people lived at the home.

The provider returned the completed Provider Information Return (PIR), within the requested timeframes. A PIR is a form which asks the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIR included details of external health professionals who had involvement with the home. Prior to the inspection we contacted the external health professionals. We did this to seek their feedback on the service provided. We received no negative feedback.

Before the inspection visit we viewed information the Care Quality Commission (CQC) holds about Catterall House Residential Care Home. This included any statutory notifications, adult safeguarding information and comments and concerns. To assist in the planning of the inspection, we also contacted the local commissioning authority to gain their views. We received no concerning information.

As part of the inspection visit we spoke with six people who lived at the home and two relatives. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with the registered manager of the home, the registered provider and the chef. In addition, we spoke with three care staff and the deputy manager. We walked around the home and spent time in the communal areas. This allowed us to observe the interactions between people who lived at the home and staff. We also spoke with three external health professionals who were visiting the home.

We looked at a range of documentation. We looked at four care records and three staff files, staff rotas and health and safety documentation. As part of the inspection we viewed a sample of medicine records. We also viewed a sample of accident and incident records.

Updated 31 August 2017

This comprehensive inspection was carried out on the 18 July 2017 and the 21 July 2017. The first day was unannounced.

Catterall House is located on the outskirts of Garstang and is within easy reach of the Cities of Preston and Lancaster. Accommodation is provided for up to 24 older people who need help with personal care. Most bedrooms are of single occupancy. Bathrooms are located throughout the home. A variety of sitting rooms are accessible and a separate dining room is provided. A variety of amenities are available within Garstang village centre and public transport links are easily accessible.

At the time of the inspection visit there was a manager in place who was registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 last inspected Catterall House Residential Care Home in December 2016. We identified no breaches in the regulations we looked at.

During this inspection visit carried out in July 2017 we found medicines were managed safely. We saw people received their medicines in safe way, at the time they needed them.

We observed care and support being provided in a safe way and people told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I’m safe enough.”

Staff were able to explain the actions they would take if they were concerned someone was at risk of harm or abuse. They told us they would report concerns to the registered manager, the Care Quality Commission or the Lancashire Safeguarding Authorities so further investigations could take place.

We checked to see if people without mental capacity were lawfully deprived of their liberty if this was necessary. We found appropriate applications to deprive people of their liberty were made to the local authorities as required.

We reviewed staff files and found there were processes that ensured staff were suitably recruited. Staff we spoke with confirmed checks had been carried out prior to starting work at the home.

Staff told us they received training and supervision to enable them to fulfil their role. Staff said they enjoyed the training and further training was available if this was required. We viewed documentation which evidenced staff received supervision and training.

We discussed staffing with people who lived at the home. People told us, “Sometimes I have to wait when I ring the bell, but it’s not for long.” And, “I think there’s enough here to look after us all.” During the inspection we saw staff were patient and kind with people who lived at the home. We saw people were supported at a pace appropriate to their individual needs.

People who lived at Catterall House Residential Care Home told us they considered staff were caring. One person told us, ““They’re really good, kind and patient, I can’t fault the staff”. We observed people being supported with kindness and compassion.

People who lived at the home told us activities were available for them to participate in if they wished to do so. One person said, ““I like reading, I get books from the mobile library. The home and relatives take me out”. During the inspection we saw people being supported to take part in activities which were important to them.

People told us they enjoyed the meals provided. We observed the lunchtime meal and saw this was a positive experience for people who lived at the home. Staff gently encouraged people to eat and we saw people enjoyed their meal.

We reviewed documentation which described the care and support people required. The documentation we viewed contained the social histories and interests of people who lived at the home. We saw if people required advice from other health professionals, referrals were made appropriately.

The registered manager carried out checks to ensure improvements could be identified. These included checks on care records, attendance at training and accidents and incidents. There was a quality survey in place, which was provided to people who lived at the home. This enabled people to give feedback on the service provided. We saw any actions as a result of this feedback was carried out when possible. This was displayed on a notice board within the home.

We noted some areas of the home smelt malodorous. We have made a recommendation about implementing actions from an external professional's infection control audit.

We found some areas of the home required redecoration. We discussed this with the registered manager and registered provider. We have made a recommendation regarding the documentation of action plans relating to this.

We saw window restrictors had been fitted to windows in occupied bedrooms. The registered manager told us bedrooms would be redecorated and window restrictors would be fitted as the rooms were re-furbished. We saw PEEP’S (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans) were in place and fire doors were closed. This helped minimise the risk of fire spread and ensured staff had access to be able to evacuate people from the home if the need arose.

There was a complaints policy available at the home. People told us they would talk to staff if they had any concerns.

People who lived at the home told us they could speak with the registered manager if they wished to do so. We saw meetings were held for people to express their opinions and people who lived at the home and their relatives told us the manager was approachable.