You are here

Archived: St James' Park Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 October 2016

The inspection took place on the 25 and 26 August 2016 and was unannounced. We previously inspected the service on the 3 March 2014 and found no concerns.

St James' Park Care Home (known locally as St James’) can provide residential care for up to 31 older people. Nursing care is provided. St James’ is registered with us to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. Diagnostic and screening procedures was discussed on inspection to request it is removed if this activity is not in use. We were advised that Bupa Care Homes are seeking to have this activity removed from all its locations that provide nursing care.

A registered manager was employed to manage the service locally. 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 happy and safe living at St James’. They felt staff treated them with kindness and respect. People felt in control of their care and important as individuals to staff.

Although we found there were enough staff to manage the service safely, we were told by people, family and staff that this had not always been the case. We looked at this during the inspection and discussed the issues raised, with the registered manager and area manager. They told us there had been issues with recruiting staff, but four weeks prior to the inspection other ways of ensuring there were enough staff deployed was implemented. This included the use of agency staff. The registered manager was managing this and another service locally. They were supported by a deputy manager in each location and a staff structure which allowed them to have oversight of both services. We had discussions with the area manager, (as staffing issues had recently put pressures on the registered manager) to ensure there was sufficient support for the registered manager to fulfil their role effectively. We were reassured this would be monitored when checks by the provider were completed at the service. This would help ensure any issues or support needs could be identified quickly.

People’s medicines were administered safely and they had their nutritional and health needs met. People could see a range of health professionals as required. People had risk assessments in place so they could live safely at the service. People’s care was personalised and planned with them and staff responded quickly to any need to ensure people’s current needs were met. People’s end of life needs were planned with them. People were supported at the end of their life with dignity and free of pain. The service was accredited in respect of how they cared for people and their families at the end of their life.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm and abuse. Staff were recruited safely and underwent training to ensure they were able to carry out their role effectively. Staff were trained to meet people’s specific needs. Staff promoted people’s rights to be involved in planning and consenting to their care. Where people were not able to consent to their care, staff followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant people’s human rights were upheld.

Activities were provided to keep people physically and cognitively stimulated. People’s faith and cultural needs were met.

There were clear systems of governance and leadership in place. The provider and registered manager ensured there were systems in place to measure the quality of the service. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback on the service. Everyone felt they were listened to and any contribution they made was taken seriously. Regular audits made sure the service was running we

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 October 2016

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe living at the service.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs safely. Staff were recruited safely.

People were protected by staff who could identify abuse and who would act to protect people.

People had risk assessments in place to mitigate risks associated with living at the service.

People were protected by safe infection control practices.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 October 2016

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who were trained to meet their needs.

People were assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as required. Staff always asked for people’s consent before providing care or support, and respected their response.

People had enough to eat and drink.

People had their health needs met.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 October 2016

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff who treated them with kindness and respect. People and visitors spoke highly of staff. Staff spoke about the people they were caring for with fondness.

People felt in control of their care and staff listened to them.

People said staff protected their dignity.

Staff sought people’s advance choices and planned their end of life with them. The service had been awarded the Gold Standard for end of life care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 October 2016

The service was responsive.

People had care plans in place to reflect their current needs.

Activities were provided to keep people physically, cognitively and socially active. People’s religious needs were met.

People’s concerns were picked up early and reviewed to resolve the issues involved.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 October 2016

The service was well-led.

People, relatives and staff said the service was well-led.

There was clear evidence of the provider ensuring the quality of the service. The registered manager had audits in place to ensure the quality and safety of the service.

People and staff felt the registered and deputy managers were approachable. The registered manager was developing a culture which was open and inclusive. People and staff said they could suggest new ideas and these were listened to. People were kept up to date on developments in the service and their opinion was requested.

There were contracts in place to ensure the equipment and building were maintained.