You are here

Archived: Sabourn Court Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 December 2015

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 29 September 2015. Our last inspection took place on 4 April 2013 and found that the provider was compliant in all but one standard which was infection control. We carried out a focused inspection on 5 September 2013 specifically to look at infection control and found that the provider met this standard.

Sabourn Court provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 49 older people. The home is comprised of two buildings, namely Oakwood House and Park House. It is located close to local amenities and is accessible by public transport.

At the time of this inspection the home had a registered manager. 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 who we spoke with felt safe using this service. Staff had received training in safeguarding and were able to demonstrate their knowledge in this area.

People’s care plans contained sufficient and relevant information to provide consistent, person centred care and support. We found people had access to healthcare services and these were accessed in a timely way to make sure people’s health care needs were met. The medication system was well managed and people received their medicines at the right times.

Recruitment processes were not always robust as thorough checks were not always completed before staff started work to make sure they were safe and suitable to work.

The provider did not have a way of assessing overall staffing levels for the service. Both people using the service and staff members told us there were insufficient numbers of staff whilst building works were taking place.

Staff were able to demonstrate an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, although some mental capacity assessments had not been fully completed.

On the day of our visit we saw people looked well cared for. We saw staff speaking calmly and respectfully to people who used the service. Staff demonstrated they knew people’s individual preferences and what they needed to do to meet people’s care needs. Staff demonstrated they respected people’s privacy and dignity.

We saw people received adequate nutrition and hydration. They had access to a wide variety of meal choices, although people had different experiences regarding the quality of food.

Complaints were not responded to in accordance with the provider’s policy and the results from the last survey for people living in the home had not been analysed by the provider. We saw there was support from the provider who carried out regular audits.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 December 2015

The service was not always safe.

Recruitment procedures were not robust and some staff had been employed without their suitability being fully explored.

Staffing levels had not been determined using a dependency tool which considered the needs of the people using the service.

We found that medicines were well managed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 16 December 2015

The service was not always effective.

We saw some mental capacity assessments had not been fully completed. The provider did not have records of best interest assessments for people who lacked the capacity to make decisions in relation to their health and social care needs.

We saw supervisions and appraisals had taken place, although the policy for this did not cover non-nursing staff.

People received adequate nutrition and hydration. People had different opinions on the quality of meals.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 December 2015

The service was caring.

People using the service and their relatives told us they liked the staff and felt well cared for.

We saw that staff knew the people they were caring for and how they wanted to receive support.

We saw staff treating people in a dignified and compassionate way.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 16 December 2015

The service was not always responsive to people’s needs.

We noted there was not always information recorded about the outcome or actions taken in response to complaints.

Care plans were easy to follow and contained information used by staff to provide person centred care.

Some people told us they were bored as there was not enough stimulation for them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 December 2015

The service was well-led.

We saw the provider regularly visited this location and carried out audits.

We found meetings took place for both people living in the home and staff on a regular basis.

People expressed that they valued the leadership and support provided by the registered manager.