Background to this inspection
Updated
19 May 2015
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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection started on 24 February 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors, a specialist adviser and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. A second visit, which was announced, was carried out on 25 February 2015 by an adult social care inspector.
Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the notifications of incidents that the provider had sent us since the last inspection. We contacted the commissioners of the service, dietitian services and the local Healthwatch group to obtain their views. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.
During the inspection we spoke with nine people living at the home, nine relatives and four visiting care professionals. We also spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, a nurse, four care workers, an activity staff member and a member of catering staff. We observed care and support in the communal areas and looked around the premises. We viewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. These included the care records of six people, the recruitment records of four staff members, training records and quality monitoring reports.
We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also joined people for a lunchtime meal to help us understand how well people were cared for.
Updated
19 May 2015
The Mews is a purpose built care home which provides nursing and personal care for older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. It is registered to provide up to 50 places, but two rooms are currently used as an office and a day room. All of the bedrooms are for single occupancy and are en-suite. At the time of this visit there were 41 people living at the home, including two people on short break placements.
The last inspection of this home was carried out on 20 August 2013. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.
This inspection took place over two days. The first visit on 24 February 2015 was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. Another visit was made on 25 February 2015.
The home had a registered manager who had been in this role for two years. 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 told us they felt safe at the home and were happy with the staff. One person commented, "Yes, I am safe - everything is fine." Relatives also felt their family members were safe and comfortable with the staff who supported them. The health and social care professionals we spoke with during the inspection told us they had no concerns about the safety of people using the service. One visiting nurse told us, “I come at all different times of the day and have never had any concerns.”
Staff were clear about how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. Staff told us they were confident that any concerns would be listened to and investigated to make sure people were protected. The provider made sure only suitable staff were employed. People were assisted with their medicines in the right way.
All the people we spoke with felt their care needs were being met. One person felt they had to wait for assistance because staff had to bring hoist equipment. We told the registered manager to make sure staff and equipment were deployed as quickly as possible when people requested support. Staff told us there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s physical and social needs. Visiting care professionals also felt there were enough staff to support people in the right way.
The people we spoke with confirmed that staff met their care needs. People’s comments included, “They are very good and will give extra help if necessary” and “they couldn’t do any more than what they do”. All the people and relatives we spoke with felt staff had the right skills and competencies to provide the right support. Staff had the relevant training and support to care for people in the right way. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision.
People said any changes in their health needs were referred to the relevant health care services. Health care professionals said the home responded appropriately to any changes in people’s well-being.
People were supported to eat and drink enough and they had choices about their meals. People and relatives felt staff were caring and kind. People were encouraged to make their own decisions and choices about their lifestyle and daily routines. There was a warm sociable atmosphere in the home and there were friendly interactions between people and staff. People had opportunities to join in activities or go out with staff from time to time.
People had information about how to make a complaint or comment and said they would be confident that these would be acted upon. People, relatives and staff felt they could approach the registered manager at any time and said the home was “well managed”.
Staff felt there was an open and supportive culture amongst the staff team. They said they liked working at the home. The provider had an effective system for checking the quality and safety of the service.