Archived: Codnor Park Care Home

Codnor Park Care Home is a 40 bed residential home. At the time of our inspection, there were 29 people living there.

The service had a registered manager at the time of our inspection visit. 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 were not kept safe from the risks associated with poor infection control or equipment which had not been checked as safe to use. The provider had systems to monitor and review all aspects of the service, and these were undertaken regularly. However, the systems did not identify issues with infection prevention and control, or equipment safety.

People’s care needs were assessed and recorded and risks identified. However, risk assessments and care plans did not consistently identify steps staff should take to reduce the risk of avoidable harm, and were not always up to date.

People had medicines available when they needed them and in accordance with prescribing instructions. People were happy with staff who provided their personal care, and felt safe living at Codnor Park Care Home. They were cared for by sufficient staff who were suitably skilled, experienced and knowledgeable about people’s needs. Staff worked in cooperation with health and social care professionals to ensure that people received appropriate healthcare and treatment in a timely manner.

The provider took steps to ensure checks were undertaken to ensure that potential staff were suitable to work with people needing care. Staff received supervision and had checks on their knowledge and skills. They also received an induction and training in a range of skills the provider felt necessary to meet the needs of people at the service.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to assess whether people were able to consent to their care. The provider met the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS).

People felt cared for by staff who treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. The support people received was tailored to meet their individual needs, wishes and aspirations. People, their relatives, and staff felt able to raise concerns or suggestions in relation to the quality of care. The provider had a complaints procedure to ensure that issues with quality of care were addressed.

People who used the service all provided positive comments about the home. We were told by people that they felt their needs were looked after well. One person told us 'I like living here. I've got friends and the staff are very good'.

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

The provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place and carried out relevant checks when they employ staff.

The provider had clear systems in place to obtain feedback from all persons involved in the service as well as auditing their own service. This showed that the provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided.