You are here

Archived: Netherton Green Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 26 May 2016

Our inspection was unannounced and took place on 14 and 15 January 2016.

Netherton Green Residential and Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and support for 120 people. The home is a purpose built building and consists of four separate single storey buildings each accommodating up to 30 older people. The four units are called Saltwell, Darby House, Windmill House and Primrose. On Windmill House, nursing care was provided to people who lived with dementia and 28 people were in occupancy. Primrose provided care for people who lived with dementia and 29 people were in occupancy. On Darby House palliative nursing care was provided and 25 people were in occupancy. Saltwell provided intermediate/rehabilitation nursing care and 30 people were in occupancy. This is a step down support unit for people discharged from hospital who were not ready to return to their own homes.

At our last inspection of July 2014 the provider was not meeting two regulations that we assessed relating infection control standards and staffing levels within Primrose unit. Improvements were also required regarding the caring approach towards people and the level of interaction from staff with people who lived with dementia, on Primrose. Following our inspection the provider sent us an action plan which highlighted the action they would take to improve. Our inspection findings confirmed that improvements had been made. However we found other areas of practice that required improvement at this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the home. 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 were kept safe from harm or potential abuse by staff who had been trained and knew how to recognise and report concerns. Information about the risks to people’s safety were communicated and equipment was in place to meet their needs safely.

There were enough staff across the different units but staff were not always effectively deployed to consistently meet people's needs.

People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely and who had received induction and training. Additional training was needed and had been planned to ensure they met people's needs

and kept them safe. Staff felt that they were well supported.

People's rights were met under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and the Deprivation of

Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards protect the rights of people by ensuring if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty, these have been authorised by the local authority. Assessments of people’s capacity and advanced decisions made by them were known.

Most people enjoyed the meals offered. Some people were not proactively given a choice because information about meals was not provided in a way they could understand. Some people did not receive the support they needed to eat and drink sufficient amounts.

People were complimentary about the staff and described them as kind and patient. However some people’s support was not sufficiently personalised to meet their needs and preferences. People’s dignity was at times compromised because staff did not always promote choice or anticipate the needs of people whose communication was limited.

People told us that they felt that activities at the service were limited. We saw the provider was taking action to improve this.

People were given information on how to make a complaint and systems were in place to manage complaints. People felt the home was well led. There was a new management structure in place. We saw quality assurance systems had improved and had picked up a number of shortfalls which the registered manager had plans to address. However we found additional

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 26 May 2016

The service was not always safe.

People were at risk of not having their medicines as prescribed because medicine records had not been accurately kept. Risks associated with people�s medicines had not always been identified and there was a lack of supporting information to guide staff.

Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient amounts of staff on duty although at times people were unsupervised.

Staff knew the actions they should take if they suspected someone was at risk of harm or abuse and risks to people�s safety had been identified.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 26 May 2016

The service was not always effective.

People were not actively supported to make choices about meals and did not always receive the support they needed to eat or drink sufficiently

Staff understood and worked within the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the key requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Not all of the staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

People were supported to maintain their health and well being by having access to healthcare professional support where required.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 26 May 2016

The service was not consistently caring.

People�s dignity was compromised because staff did not always promote choice or anticipate the needs of people whose communication was limited.

People and their relatives were supported to express their views about their care.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 26 May 2016

The service was not always responsive.

People and their relatives were involved in planning their care but some people did not receive consistent, personalised care.

People felt activities were limited, the provider was taking action to improve opportunities..

People were given information on how to make a complaint and systems were in place to manage complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 26 May 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

Systems to assess the quality of the service had improved but the ethos of personalised care needed improvements.

People felt the home was well led. Staff felt supported by the management team and were confident that improvements had and were being made.

People�s views were sought and acted on. Complaints and concerns were

properly investigated and addressed.