You are here

Overslade House Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

We inspected this service on 2 July 2018 and returned on 3 July 2018. On the first day of our inspection we arrived at the home during the afternoon, we stayed throughout the evening to get a better view of the service during the evening and when the staff changed to the night shift. The inspection was unannounced on 2 July 2018, and we told the registered manager that we would return on 3 July 2018.

Overslade House is a 'care home' operated by Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited, who are a large provider of care services. Overslade House is a purpose-built home which provides accommodation with personal and nursing care for up to 89 adults, including people living with dementia and physical disabilities. End of life care is provided at the home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Of the 89 beds, 15 are contracted by the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) for people discharged from hospital and in need of personal and nursing care. Ten of these beds are offered on a ‘Discharge to Assess’ basis; for an initial six-week assessment period. The home is split into three units. At the time of our visit, there were 79 people living at the home.

A requirement of the services’ registration with us is that they have a registered manager. 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. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection visit.

We last inspected this service on 4 January 2018 to undertake a planned comprehensive inspection. We then returned on 16 February 2018 because we were made aware of a serious incident which had taken place in the home. At that inspection, we rated the safety of the service as Requires Improvement because there was an on-going external investigation into the serious incident that had occurred. We gave the service an overall rating of Good.

We undertook this inspection following further information of concern received. This inspection focused on two key areas; the safety and governance of the service. At the time of this inspection, the investigation into the serious incident remained on-going.

Overall, staff knew how to keep people safe because risks were assessed and actions implemented to mitigate risks of harm or injury. However, staff did not always recognise when people's behaviours or their own practice created risks that could compromise people's safety. This meant some risks were not assessed which could put people at risk of harm or injury.

People had their prescribed medicines available to them. Medicines were given to people by trained staff.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risks of abuse. Staff had been trained in what constituted abuse and would raise concerns under the provider’s safeguarding policies. The provider checked staff’s suitability to deliver care and support during the recruitment process. Staff received training and, overall, used their skills, knowledge and experience to provide safe care to people.

People and their relatives had no complaints about the service. However, some people and relatives felt more staff were needed because at times staff took over five minutes to answer call bells.

Staff on shift met people’s individual needs, however, staff were very busy and rushed. This had been recognised by the provider who was recruiting to an additional nurse post for day shifts.

The registered manager and provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service people received. Increased spot checks had b

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 25 July 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Most risks were assessed and plans were in place to reduce risks of harm or injury. However, this was not consistent.

Staff were safely recruited and people's needs were met by trained staff. Management had recognised that staff were very busy on shift and recruitment was underway for an additional nurse post during the day. People had their prescribed medicines available to them. The home was clean and well presented.

There remains an on-going police investigation into a serious incident at the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was effective.

Staff completed an induction and training so they had the skills they needed to effectively meet people�s needs. People made choices about their care. Where people could not make decisions for themselves, important decisions were made in their �best interests� in consultation with health professionals. People were supported to see healthcare professionals when needed. The design of the premises supported people to move around safely. People received food and drink that met their preferences and supported them to maintain their health.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well and respected people�s privacy and dignity. Staff treated people with care and kindness. People were able to have friends and relatives visit them when they wished. People made decisions about how their care and support was delivered.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People were supported to take part in social activities in accordance with their interests and hobbies. People had personalised records of their care needs and how these should be met. People were able to raise complaints and provide feedback about the service. Complaints were analysed to identify any trends and patterns, so that action could be taken to make improvements. There was end of life care planning in place to involve people in decisions that took into account their wishes and preferences at this time.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The service was well led.

Quality assurance systems and processes were in place to assess the service provided. The management team had implemented increased quality assurance to monitor the quality of the service following a serious incident that had taken place in the home. Spot checks were undertaken by management to ensure staff followed policies and implemented knowledge and skills from their training. People, relatives and staff felt the management were approachable.