You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 1 and 9 May 2018. At the last inspection in April 2017 we found the service was in breach of Regulation 13 (Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we found the service had made the required improvements.

Tealbeck House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of the inspection there were 45 people living in the home, which comprised two floors and communal lounge, dining area and conservatory.

There was not a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection, however the service had appointed a manager in February 2018 who was in the process of applying to register with CQC. 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 felt safe living at the home and that there were enough staff to meet their care needs. Staff were recruited safely. Staff were trained in protecting people from abuse and there were processes in place to ensure issues were raised and investigated appropriately.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely, and the premises were made secure, regular maintenance and equipment checks were undertaken. Risks to people were assessed appropriately and people were protected from infection.

Staff received appropriate levels of training and support through induction, supervision and appraisal. People told us they felt confident staff were well trained and competent to perform their duties.

People were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet and they told us they enjoyed the food provided to them. People’s health and wellbeing was also monitored, and staff were proactive in requested advice and guidance from medical professionals where necessary.

People told us staff were kind caring and compassionate. Staff were able to describe how they supported people to remain independent and care plans provided further guidance on how to support people. Staff were also able to describe how they protected people’s privacy and dignity.

Care plans were written in a person-centred way which took into account their likes, dislikes and preferences. Conversations around end of life preferences were not always recorded and followed up. We have made a recommendation about the recording of end of life care plans.

There were a range of activities on offer and efforts had been made to improve the range of activities and community links, however some staff said that this required further resource and improvement to ensure everyone could enjoy meaningful activities. We have made a recommendation about activities provision at the service.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the manager and confident in their leadership of the service.

The provider was able to evidence how it engaged with staff and people using the service through meetings and surveys.

There was a quality monitoring system in place which provided oversight and enabled the provider to analyse trends and themes, as well as provide support to the manager.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet people�s care needs and staff were recruited in a safe way.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. People received medicines in a way they preferred.

The service maintained the premises and equipment through a system of checks, audits and inspections.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was effective.

The service was operating under the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received sufficient training and support.

People were supported to maintain healthy lifestyles and they had good access to health professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate. The home had a warm atmosphere and people were visibly engaging with each other.

The service promoted people�s independence and staff supported them to remain as independent as possible.

People�s privacy and dignity was protected by staff, and people�s cultural and spiritual needs were taken into account.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was not always responsive.

Care plans were written in a person-centred way and people were assessed appropriately. End of life discussions were not always recorded effectively or followed up.

There were activities available and activities provision was improving, although some staff felt there were not enough resources in place to ensure everyone could enjoy meaningful activities.

People knew how to raise complaints and they were responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had quality monitoring systems in place which were used to identify shortfalls and drive improvement.

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and said they felt confident in the leadership of the service.

The provider gathered feedback from people and staff and used this to create action plans to further improve the service.