• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Polefield Nursing Home

77 Polefield Road, Manchester, Lancashire, M9 7EN (0161) 795 4102

Provided and run by:
Rosewood Care Services Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

30 September 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection was carried out by one inspector to follow up on a number of compliance actions which were identified at the last inspection in May 2014. Since then the home had gone into administration and an operational manager had been sent in by the administrators to oversee the running of the service. The registered manager had left and a new manager had been appointed.

We met with eight people who used the service, observed their experiences of care and asked them about their experience to support our inspection. We spoke with the new manager, five care and nursing staff, and two visiting relatives. We looked at records and followed up on information we had received from the home about improvements they were going to make.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:-

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

Is the service safe?

At the inspection in May 2014 we found the service was not safe because people were cared for in an environment which was not was not clean and hygienic and found the provider had not ensured people living in the home were in a safe environment.

At the inspection on 30 September 2014 we found significant improvements had been made to ensure people were kept safe.

Is the service effective?

At the inspection in May 2014 we found not all staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home. We found that people's care records were not kept securely and we found that the provider's statement of purpose was not up to date.

At the inspection on 30 September 2014 we found staff had received training or were planning to have training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and support. The statement of purpose had been updated and records were stored securely.

Is the service caring?

We saw positive interactions taking place and staff responding in a kind manner to people who lived at the home. The feedback we received about the home was positive and the home had a calm relaxed atmosphere. We were aware that staff had experienced some challenges over the previous few months yet had remained focused on ensuring the people living at the home were not affected.

Is the service responsive?

We found the service was responsive as staff ensured people received additional support from other health or social care professionals when they needed it. We saw an example of this at our inspection on 30 September 2014.

People who lived at the home held meetings with staff to discuss their views on living at the home and relatives we spoke with told us the home had listened to them and involved them in different aspects of the running of the home and the support offered.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us things were much better now and people using the service told us they knew there was a new manager and there had been problems which were now getting sorted out. This told us the management was open and transparent and were keen to work together to ensure people continued to receive a good service and that staff received the appropriate level of support.

The new manager was in the process of submitting an application form to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the registered manager. The operational manager told us there were plans to sell the home. We saw systems and policies had been introduced to enable the new manager to deliver a good standard of care.

21 May 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out by one inspector. We met with nine people who used the service and observed their experiences of care to support our inspection. We spoke with the registered manager, eight care and nursing staff, three relatives and three health care professionals.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:-

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was not clean and hygienic.

We asked people if they had any concerns about the care provided by the home and they told us that were happy with the care provided and that the staff were caring. One relative told us, 'I am happy with the care provided here.' They also said that their relative was safe while living at the home.

Appropriate risk assessments were in place, and the registered manager had suitable arrangements to safeguard people from foreseeable emergencies.

We saw safeguarding procedures were in place and that staff understood how to safeguard the people that they supported. At the time of the inspection, there was one person at the home subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and correct procedures had been followed.

We found safeguarding concerns but the provider had not followed the correct procedures.

There were quality checks and audits completed to make sure the building was maintained and procedures were followed. However, we found the provider had not ensured people living in the home were in a safe environment.

Is the service effective?

All of the people we spoke with, told us they were happy with the care that was delivered and their needs were met. We noted all of the people who lived at the home had a named nurse.

We saw people walking around the home freely and making their own decisions about where they wanted to go, including some people going out to smoke or go to the local shops or community groups. We also saw people had a choice of where they ate meals.

Not all staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home.

We found that people's care records were not kept securely.

We found that the provider's statement of purpose was not up to date.

Is the service caring?

Observations during the visit showed staff and people who lived at the home were comfortable in each other's company. During the day and we saw some positive interactions taking place and staff responding in a kind manner to people who lived at the home.

Is the service responsive?

Regular reviews were carried out with the people who used the service and their representatives to make sure the person's care and treatment needs had not changed. This helped ensure staff supplied the correct amount of care and treatment.

When a person who lived at the home needed other professional input, we saw the staff had ensured this happened.

Information within the care plan gave staff an insight into the interests, likes and dislikes and areas of importance to the people in their care. This meant staff had an insight into the person they were supporting which enabled them to better support their needs.

Meetings took place with staff to discuss the running of the service and to ensure the service was responsive in meeting the changing needs of people who used the service.

People who lived at the home held meetings with staff to discuss their views on living at the home. This meant that people were involved in communications about the running of the home and staff listened.

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager in post at the home.

People who used the service had regular contact from the registered manager and other senior staff to check their wellbeing. The quality of service provided by care givers was monitored and this was done through quality audits and also through meetings arranged with the people who used the service.

One relative told us that they were kept regularly updated by the staff team if any changes occurred. The relative told us, 'I did not know there were any meetings, other than what my relative goes to. I don't need to go anyway though as staff tell me what's going on.'

16 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not speak with the people who used the service as part of this inspection.

We carried out this inspection to check the provider had taken action to address the compliance action issued at our last inspection on 20 May 2013.

During our previous inspection we had moderate concerns about this outcome. We found that adequate systems were not in place to ensure the people using the service were protected against the risks associated with medicines.

During this inspection we found that the provider had improved the way medicines were managed and nursing staff had received further training so they were aware of their responsibilities and knew how to work safely.

Information was available to guide staff on how and when to give medicines prescribed on the basis of 'as and when required' and how to apply creams properly.

The way medicines were audited was more thorough and records of the medicines given to the people using the service were well maintained.

20 May 2013

During a routine inspection

The people who used the service were happy with the care they received and on the whole spoke well of the staff. One person said, 'I'm happy here' and 'Can't grumble, if I want help I press the button'. Another person told us, 'I don't like this place, but there is no where else to go, I wish I was at home'. There was good interaction between the staff and the people who used the service and the atmosphere in the home was quiet and calm with no excessive noise.

Relatives spoken with during the inspection said they were happy with the care provided. One person said, 'I'm happy with the care my relative is getting'. Another person told us, 'They look after my relative very well, they are angels'

People's emotional care needs were met through a range of social activities being provided. Staff consulted with health care professionals to ensure people's physical care needs were met.

Staff were trained on how to safeguard people from abuse and harm and knew to report any signs or the suspicion of abuse to a senior member of staff.

A range of equipment was available to support people with their mobility and physical care needs and to minimise the risk of them coming to any harm.

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Staff were provided with a range of training for their professional development.

1 May 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The people who used the service said they received the care and support they needed. They said they enjoyed the food and always had plenty to eat. They said the staff were always kind and friendly and they had never been spoken to or treated badly. People said they were happy with the standard of care they received and had no complaints to raise. Their comments included:

'I'm happy with the care I get.'

'The staff are good with personal care.'

'The food is lovely, there is always plenty to eat and we have a choice at each meal.'

'The food is very good, always plenty of it and a good variety.'

'The staff are lovely, they always have a smile.'

'The girls are great. I have never been treated badly by any of them.'

'I have no complaints, I'm quite happy with everything.'

'I would speak to the manager if I was unhappy but everything is fine.'

Relatives of the people who used the service said they were happy with the way their relative was looked after. They said they had never seen any signs of abuse or neglect and said the home was well run. Their comments included:

'I am always kept informed about my relative's welfare. The staff call the doctor straight away if she is not well.'

'The staff are marvellous, they are all very good.'

'The staff are very kind. Nothing is ever any trouble.

'The staff are very helpful, I have never seen anyone teat people badly.'

'The manager is very good, this is a well run home.'

'Polefield care home is like home from home. The staff are all very friendly. I feel my relative gets a good service.'

Health care professionals said they were satisfied with the way their clients were supported and had no concerns to raise. Health care professionals we spoke with commented on the improved management of the service and had no concerns to raise. In April 2011 Manchester city council contract department suspended their contract with Polefield nursing home due to concerns about the standard of the service and the way it was being managed. Since this time the home has been subject to monthly monitoring visits. The Commission has been informed this suspension has now been lifted as the providers have improved the service and recruited a new manager. They have made a commitment to ensuring the ongoing improvement of the service. While the monitoring visits are continuing, the frequency of these visits has reduced.

17 November 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People told us that things had much improved since our last visit to the service in July 2011. We spoke with a number of people using the service and their comments included, 'Staff care for me well. I can have a drink when ever I want and I generally sit by the kitchen and watch the television', 'Staff are lovely and if you ask for things they listen to you. I'm quite satisfied with everything here' and 'I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, this is my home and the staff look after me very well'.

27 June 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We received mixed views from people who use the services at Polefield Nursing Home during our visit on the Sunday 23rd July 2011. Some people told us about how good the support was that they were receiving whilst others said otherwise.

Some people using the service stated their care worker was 'excellent' another said in their opinion Polefield Nursing Home was 'one of the best in Manchester'. When we spoke with another person they said they were 'quite happy' with the care they were receiving and that care workers were 'very good and kind' but there were also a number of people who were not satisfied with the services they were receiving as we observed throughout the visit.

One person spoken with told us of their experience of being and 'woken up' by a care worker and then left partway through receiving support. They also explained that the call bell had been placed out of reach and in their opinion they felt this was deliberately done so by care workers so they could not summon assistance.

A number of people using the service told us they had not received a drink when they were woken or for some considerable time after rising. One person asked the inspector if they could provide them with a drink. A visitor informed an inspector during the visit that their relative was "desperate for a drink".

After sharing two mealtimes with people who use the service we concluded that the overall dining room experience for people was poor. One person using the service told us did not like going to the dining room because it was 'too dark'. Another person who preferred specialised diets told us the choice was 'very limited and would welcome more fresh vegetables'. We saw people not receiving the individual support they required at mealtimes and being served their hot meals cold.