Archived: Adamscourt Residential Care Home

There were 24 people living in the home on the day of our unannounced inspection and we spoke with seven of them. The registered manager and proprietor were available during the inspection.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Where a need was identified a plan was in place to meet this need. For example, for one person who was diabetic, their care plan contained clear guidance on the ideal blood sugar range, how to manage diabetes and what to do in an emergency. Another person was identified as being at high risk of falling. The provider had taken steps to ensure the person's safety and welfare by ensuring the person had one to one support during the times of the day that the person was most at risk of falling.

People were supported by staff who were able to perform their role. We looked at the staff training matrix and this showed that all staff who worked at Adamscourt Residential Care Home had completed training that included moving and handling, infection control, food hygiene and safeguarding vulnerable adults.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care homes. No applications had been submitted; however, the registered manager explained that due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, they were in the process of preparing DoLS applications to submit to the local authority. The provider had a policy and relevant staff understood how an application should be made.

Is the service caring?

People were treated with consideration and respect and their privacy was maintained. We spoke with seven people and the relatives of one person. One person told us, "It's very good." Another person said, "Staff are very nice they are very good, very helpful." A person's relative commented, "We can't speak highly enough of the home."

Staff communicated with people in a sensitive and considerate manner. For example, we saw members of staff discreetly ask people whether they needed assistance to go to the toilet. During lunchtime we observed three members of staff sat at a table supporting a people with their meal. The staff waited until the person had finished what was in their mouth before offering more food. We saw that bedroom and bathroom doors were kept closed when people were being supported with personal care and staff knocked on doors before entering.

Is the service effective?

Peoples' needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered to meet their needs. For example, we looked at the accident records for people living in the home. We found that where one person had fallen several times during the month, the registered manager had contacted a range of professionals for further guidance. We saw that plans had then been put in place for staff to follow in order to protect the person's safety and welfare. One person's relative told us that they felt that their mother's care needs were being met and that the registered manager was "on the ball and supportive." People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the home, enabling people to move around freely and safely.

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

Is the service responsive?

People accessed the services of healthcare professionals as required. During the day of our inspection we noted that two professionals visited the home to ensure that people's care needs were met. Records of visits from healthcare professionals were kept. For example, we found that visits from chiropodists, district nurses, opticians and GPs were documented. One person told us "The staff are lovely, nothing is too much trouble." A person's relative told us, "The staff are cheerful, caring and do a fantastic job."

Is the service well led?

The provider undertook a variety of audits to check the quality of the service. For example, we looked at audit reports relating to care plans, medication and accidents. We found that actions had been taken as a result of this monitoring. For example, a recent care plan audit resulted in a change to one person's risk assessment.

People were able to comment on the service provided. People told us that they had recently attended a resident meeting which included topics such as the garden, activities and food.

We spoke with three members of staff and five people who lived at the home. We looked at four people's care planning records and other documents relating to people's care.

Care and treatment was not always planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Appropriate checks were not always undertaken before staff began work.

The health professionals we spoke with described the registered provider and manager as "excellent" and said that "the care was dignified, ensuring the right mix of privacy and a sense of shared living space."

Two of the relatives we spoke with said that the "staff made them feel very much part of the care being offered" and that the staff were "very compassionate and caring".

The staff we spoke with described the range of activities available to the residents as "excellent" and said that they felt supported in their roles as carers by the manager and provider.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment and the provider had appropriate procedures in place to ensure the proper maintenance and suitability of the equipment provided.

We found that people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others

The relative we spoke with said they were 'very happy' with the care provided to their relative and said the staff were 'friendly, caring and polite' and they 'did not have any complaints at all'.

We found that care plans accurately reflected people's needs and had been drawn up with their involvement or the involvement of their next of kin.

People were supported by staff that had been recruited in a safe manner and people said there was always enough staff available to make sure they received the care they needed.

People we spoke with told us they were treated with dignity and respect by a staff team that knew them well and fully understood their individual needs. They told us they felt safe in the home and were confident that the care workers knew how to meet their needs and were properly trained in order to carry out their role.