You are here

Archived: Cossins House Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 April 2016

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 23 March 2016.

Cossins House Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 24 older people. At the time of our visit, there were 21 people living at the home. The majority of the people who live at the home were independent but required some support from staff, in addition the home was able to offer care for people who required additional support . The home also provides end of life care. The accommodation is provided over two floors that were accessible by stairs and a lift. There are also three bungalows in the grounds of the service where people lived and were supported by staff.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us they were safe at the service. Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.

There was sufficient numbers of staff deployed who had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work.

Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP and administered appropriately.

Fire safety arrangements and risk assessments for the environment were in place to help keep people safe. The home had a business contingency plan that identified how the home would function in the event of an emergency such as fire, adverse weather conditions, flooding or power cuts.

Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Where people had restrictions placed on them these were done in their best interests using appropriate safeguards. Staff had a clear understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) as well as their responsibilities in respect of this.

Staff had the skills and experience which were necessary to carry out their role. Staff had received appropriate support that promoted their development. We found the staff team were knowledgeable about people’s care needs. People told us they felt supported and staff knew what they were doing.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and were involved in the regular monitoring of their health. The provider worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for assessment or treatment.

Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted when personal care was undertaken. End of life care for people was provided in a caring and respectful way.

People’s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis to reflect changings in their needs.

People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the home and there were different ways for their voice to be heard. Suggestions, concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the home.

People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation through systems the home had in place. There were a range of activities available within the home and community.

The provider actively sought, encouraged a

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 April 2016

The service was safe.

There were enough staff at the home to support people�s needs.

People had risk assessments based on their individual care and support

needs.

Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely.

Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff commenced work.

There were effective safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from potential abuse. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 April 2016

The service was effective.

People�s care and support promoted their well-being in accordance with their needs. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and healthcare professionals were involved in the regular monitoring of their health.

Staff understood and knew how to apply legislation that supported people to consent to treatment. Where restrictions were in place this was in line with appropriate guidelines.

People were supported by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their assessed needs.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 April 2016

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People�s privacy were respected and promoted.

Staff were happy, cheerful and caring towards people.

People�s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people�s wishes. People�s relatives and friends were able to visit when they wished.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 April 2016

The service was responsive.

The home was organised to meet people�s changing needs.

People�s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis. Information regarding people�s treatment, care and support was reviewed regularly.

People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation and there were a range of activities available within the home and community.

People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the home and there were different ways for their voices to be heard.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 April 2016

The service was well- led.

The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people�s involvement in the improvement of the home.

People told us the staff were friendly and supportive and management were always visible and approachable.

Staff were encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the home and staff would report any concerns to their manager. The management and leadership of the home were described as good and very supportive.

The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service the home provided.