25 March 2015
During a routine inspection
This inspection took place on 25 March 2015 and was unannounced. Ruckland Court Care home provides care for older people who have mental and physical health needs including people living with dementia. It provides accommodation for up to 50 people who require personal and nursing
care. At the time of our inspection there were 47 people living at the home.
At the time of our inspection 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.’
On the day of our inspection we found that staff interacted well with people and people were cared for safely. People told us that they felt safe and well cared for. When we spoke with staff they were able to tell us about how to keep people safe. The provider had systems and processes in place to keep people safe.
Infection control risks were not consistently managed and people were at risk of cross infection.
k road,
The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). If the location is a care home the Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS, and to report on what we find.
We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered
to meet those needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals such as a dietician and GP and were supported to eat enough to keep them healthy. People had access to drinks during the day and had choices at mealtimes and where people had special dietary requirements we saw that these were provided for.
Staff responded in a timely and appropriate manner to people. Staff were kind and sensitive to people when they were providing support and people had their privacy and dignity considered.
Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and were provided with training on a variety of subjects to ensure that they had the skills to meet people’s needs. We saw that staff obtained people’s consent before providing care to them.
People had access to activities however, at the time of our inspection there were limited activities because the staff responsible for this had left and the home were in the process of recruiting to the role.
Staff told us that they felt able to raise concerns and issues with management. We found relatives were clear about the process for raising concerns and were confident that they would be listened to. However, the complaints process was only available in written format and therefore not everyone was able to access this.
Audits were carried out on a regular basis and action plans put in place to address any concerns and issues. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to ensure trends and patterns were identified. The provider had informed us of incidents as part of our notification system.