You are here

Archived: St James' Park Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 25 August 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 3 March 2014

During a routine inspection

People that we spoke with told us that they were treated with dignity and respect that their independence was encouraged and that they were spoken to in a respectful way. Observations during our inspection confirmed this.

People we spoke with said "Very happy here" and "Staff are great" a relative told us "Quality of care is quite outstanding". Observations during our inspection showed us that people were able to make their own choices.

We looked at people's care plans and saw that people had consent forms in place and that people's care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed with the involvement from their relatives.

Staff records that we looked at showed us that staff had received mandatory training as well as additional training to meet the needs of people using the service. Staff felt supported and told us "The manager is the best the home has ever had".

People were provided with a well-balanced and nutritious diet. People that we spoke with said that the food was great and that there were always plenty of choices.

We saw that the home managed complaints well and that there were detailed investigation and correspondence records in place. We also saw that the home had received a variety of compliments. We also saw that the home had a number of quality assurance tools in place.

Inspection carried out on 17 January 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Our inspection of 25 October 2012 found that the provider did not maintain appropriate standards of equipment cleanliness and did not operate effective recruitment procedures. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made.

We saw that people had an identified hoist sling for their sole use, if they required one. Equipment was clean and there was a system to ensure that cleanliness was routinely maintained.

Appropriate checks were carried out before staff started work and the provider confirmed staff registration with professional bodies where appropriate.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still the registered manager on our register at the time.

Inspection carried out on 25 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us they were involved in planning their care. One person told us, �I have a care plan. The staff come round and talk to me and my daughter about it.� People told us they were able to make choices about their lives.

People told us that staff provided the care they needed. One person told us, �The staff are aware of my needs and look after me well.� Full assessments of people�s needs had been conducted and plans to meet these needs developed. Care records contained relevant and up to date information in relation to people�s care and treatment.

People told us their environment was kept clean. We saw staff using personal protective equipment when assisting people with personal care. However, hoist slings used to assist people to access toilet facilities were shared between people without effective cleaning. This meant that people were not adequately protected from the risks of cross infection.

We found that not all necessary checks were undertaken prior to staff commencing employment, such as references from the most recent employer and proof of registration with professional bodies. This meant that there was a risk that a person without an appropriate registration with a professional body may provide care for people.

People told us they felt able to make comments about the service. We looked at the provider�s quality assurance files. A number of audits had been completed covering a variety of topics, including health and safety and care plans.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)