• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Amberley House Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Crescent, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3ES (01872) 271921

Provided and run by:
Dove Care Homes Limited

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

All Inspections

27 October 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 27 October 2015 and was an unannounced comprehensive inspection.

The last inspection took place on 7 August 2014. There were no breaches of the legal requirements however the service was given a rating of Requires Improvement due to some areas of concern regarding the deployment of staff and the condition of the premises. At this inspection we found the service had sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs, although there was a regularly occurring issue with some staff repeatedly taking short notice sickness absence at weekends which was putting pressure on the staff team. The service had taken action to improve the condition of the premises which been re-carpeted and redecorated. There were new furnishings due to arrive at the service in the coming weeks.

The service is a care home which provides nursing care and support for up to 26 predominantly older people. At the time of the inspection there were 22 people living at the service. Some of these people were living with dementia. The building is a detached house over three levels. Stairs in the service had stair lifts to support people, with mobility problems, to access all areas of the service. A passenger lift was planned to be installed in the coming months.

The service had 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.

We walked around the service which was clean and comfortable and bedrooms were personalised to reflect people’s individual tastes. People were cared for by staff who were kind and patient. People’s dignity was not always respected as people were required to share slings, used for moving and handling. This was also a potential infection control risk. The registered manager told us they had enough slings to be able to allocate the correct size sling to a person for their sole use and this would be done immediately.

We looked at how medicines were managed and administered. There were some gaps in the medicine administration records, where staff had not signed to show if people had received their medicine as prescribed. Regular medicines audits were carried out and where gaps were noticed in records, staff were reminded of the importance of recording. Medicines that required stricter controls were managed safely. Nurses monitored when people had their prescribed creams applied.

Risks were identified and assessed. There was detailed information for staff on how to reduce risks. However, some information required updating to accurately reflect the current situation for some people.

The service had identified the minimum numbers of staff required to meet people’s needs and these were being met. The morale of the staff was low. The short notice absences of staff at weekends, put staff under pressure to cover the workload and increased stress levels. The service was finding the recruitment of new nurses to fill vacant posts challenging.

New staff were supported by a system of induction. Training was provided, monitored and updated appropriately. More specialised training specific to the needs of people using the service was being provided such as dementia care. Some supervision was being provided to some staff. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager who was always available to them if needed. Staff had not received appraisals.

Staff meetings were held. These allowed staff to air any concerns or suggestions they had regarding the running of the service. Some catering staff felt they were not part of the staff team and did not attend all care staff meetings. The registered manager told us the service held separate meetings for nurses and care staff. There were combined meetings held to which all staff were invited.

Meals were appetising and people were offered a choice in line with their dietary requirements and preferences. Where necessary staff monitored what people ate to help ensure they stayed healthy.

Care plans were well organised and contained accurate and up to date information. Care planning was reviewed regularly and people’s changing needs recorded. Where appropriate, relatives were included in the reviews.

Activities were provided during the week. There was a varied programme of planned activities and people were involved in events such as a planned Bonfire Party and preparations for Christmas festivities. People’s views were sought at residents meetings and action taken in response to issues raised.

The registered manager was supported by a team of nurses. There was not a deputy manager but an area manager supported the registered manager on a regular basis. The service was well maintained. A system of quality control audits ensured the registered manager was aware of all aspects of the service provision, that may need addressing and strived to continuously improve it.

7 August 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service. This inspection was unannounced.

Amberley House is a residential care home which provides nursing care. It is registered to provide care to a maximum of 30 people. On the day of the inspection 25 people were using the service.  The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Staffing levels met the minimum level as defined by the registered manager. Staffing arrangements helped ensure people's needs were met although people told us they sometimes felt the home was short staffed.

Staff were well trained and new employees were required to undergo a 12 week induction process. This meant people were cared for by staff who had the right knowledge and skills. Staff were not receiving formal supervision but told us they felt well supported.

The house required updating and decorating. The registered manager told us there had been plans to refurbish the building but these had not been instigated. They were waiting for funding to carry out the more cosmetic problems.

There was a system of quality assurance in place which was set by Head Office. This included audits in areas such as incidents and accidents, safeguarding and complaints.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found the home was meeting the legal requirements.

People told us staff were kind and considerate. We found they knew the people they cared for well and had a good understanding of their needs. One person told us; “They look after me very well. Staff are marvellous!” The staff team communicated with each other regularly during the day and kept daily records in respect of people’s care. This meant they were quickly made aware if people’s needs changed.

Care plans were well laid out with clear guidelines for staff on how to support people. They contained information about people’s health and social needs. They also contained risk assessments which were updated regularly.

Staff and relatives told us the registered manager was approachable and easy to contact. We saw they had a good understanding of what was happening in the home on a day to day basis.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We followed up on our last inspection on the 16th and 17th June 2013 to check that action had been taken in regards to the compliance actions set by us. We had concerns regarding gaps in the training staff had undertaken. For example, only two of five nurses who administered medication had recieved training updates in this area, and only four staff had undertaken infection control training. We also had concerns regarding low levels of staff supervision. For example, at the time of our inspection the last recorded supervisions had been in January and March 2013.

Amberley House sent us training records and supervision records. We found staff had undergone training in a variety of areas since out last inspection. The supervision records showed most staff had recieved supervision with their manager.

16, 17 June 2013

During a routine inspection

The inspection was over two days. We spoke with fifteen of the twenty four people living at Amberley House. Many of the other people were not able to speak with us due to their health needs. We were able to speak privately with some people's relatives.

The majority of people were happy with the care. Comments included 'the staff are very cheerful, very helpful and willing to do their best,' and 'it could not be better.' Staff were observed as being very attentive to people's needs. One person was generally happy with the care but did express one concern, which the manager said she would subsequently resolve. Staff spoke and worked with people in a respectful manner. People said the food was very good, there was enough staff and staff would respond promptly to their needs. People said if they had a complaint the management would respond to these appropriately.

Accommodation was furnished, decorated and maintained to a good standard. The home was very clean and odour free. The medication system operated satisfactorily although the system to return medication no longer required needed improvements. Health and safety checks were completed to a good standard.

Staff recruitment checks and staffing levels were satisfactory. However we received several comments from people who used the service saying they thought the home was 'short staffed.' Some improvement was required to staff training. There was a satisfactory quality assurance system. Record systems were appropriate.

5 January 2013

During a routine inspection

During our conversations with people who used the service, their visitors, staff and our observations within Amberley House, we saw that staff respected people who used the service and were polite and helpful towards them and the atmosphere was warm, homely and welcoming.

People who used the service were positive in their comments about the home and the staff. Comments made included 'The manager and staff are lovely, very kind and look after me well', 'we have a lot of things to do here and the lady who organises the activities is just great, I had a lovely time at the pantomime this week', 'there is always a choice of food and the food is the best I have ever had outside of my own home'. Two people said some staff were better than others but were unable, or did not want to give us specific examples about why they made that comment.

We saw evidence and heard from staff how people who used the service were offered choices in how they spent their day and how the home ran. For example people chose when they got up in the morning, where they spent their day, what they wanted to eat and what was included on the menu.

The home was hygienic and clean and on the day of our inspection free from odours. Visitors to the home confirmed that this was usual and they made positive comments about the environment.

17 March 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with eight people who used the service during our inspection visit to seek their views of the service they received.

People told us that they were satisfied with the care provided to them and that the staff were kind, caring and polite. We were told that when they required assistance this was given promptly.

We saw that the routines being observed during the site visit showed that people have choices about where they spend their time.

People who used the service told us that they get up at a time that suits them and return to bed when they wish to.