We carried out a review of the data available to us about 5 Whitby Road Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about 5 Whitby Road Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Systems were in place and processes followed to help prevent people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection. Staff completed a comprehensive cleaning schedule to maintain cleanliness and reduce the risk of infection.
There was enough PPE such as aprons, gloves and masks. A range of additional checks were completed to screen people entering and leaving the service, minimising the risks from COVID-19.
People and their relatives were supported to keep in contact using a range of technology. Risk assessments were being updated to reflect latest visiting guidance. This helped to keep people safe when enjoying the company of their loved ones.
Staff and people were tested regularly for COVID-19. Evidence of completion of the required vaccinations was maintained for staff.
Staff had worked well as a team to help promote people’s wellbeing throughout the pandemic.
A programme of refurbishment was supported with checks and audits to manage the home environment and promote good infection control practice. There was an infection prevention and control lead who had oversight to ensure all required guidance was implemented and followed.
Staff had access to an up-to-date IPC policy and had completed training in infection prevention and control. Staff understood and practiced the requirements associated with the use of PPE
We found the following examples of good practice.
All staff and people living at the service received regular COVID-19 testing. Appropriate processes were in place and followed should anyone display symptoms of COVID-19
People were admitted safely to the service. Consideration was also given to people's emotional well-being during the admission process.
Visits were facilitated in line with current guidance, to support people's emotional well-being. Appropriate screening and testing was completed and visitors had access to handwashing facilities and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Different methods of communication had been used to ensure people could maintain their contact with relatives and / or friends. Staff were aware of how people most effectively communicated.
Audits were completed and used to ensure the service was providing safe care and to promote improvement.
Staff had undertaken training in infection prevention and control, which included putting on and taking off PPE and effective use of PPE. PPE was generally used effectively but we observed an interaction where PPE was not used appropriately, immediate actions were taken to address this. We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.
The service was clean and cleaning of frequent touch surfaces was in place and recorded regularly by housekeeping staff. Additional deep cleaning was also carried out where required. There was an infection prevention and control lead who was knowledgeable about their role.
Whilst consideration had been given to mitigating potential risks in relation to COVID-19, appropriate risk assessments were not in place for people who used the service. We recommended these were introduced. Some communal areas required addressing to ensure they promoted social distancing. Whilst appropriate infection prevention and control procedures were operated, there was not an up-to-date infection control policy. The provider was in the process of updating this. The provider was signposted to additional resources and information to support with this.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
North Yorkshire County Council 5 Whitby Road is a care home providing personal care for up to 40 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 35 people lived at the service. There are two separate wings, each of which has separate adapted facilities. One of the wings specialises in providing care to people living with dementia.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they enjoyed living at the service and felt safe. Support was provided by a consistent team of staff who had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs. Staff were visible around the service and it was clear positive, caring relationships had been developed.
Systems were in place to monitor and improve the service, but they had not always been effective. Some systems and records could have been developed to further drive improvement.
Improvements had been made to the recording and administration of medicines. Medicine support was now delivered in a safe way. Safeguarding concerns had been referred to the local authority when required. Risks to people were considered and any accidents and incidents were closely monitored and recorded.
People were looked after by staff who had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Staff communicated effectively with relevant professionals to ensure people received healthcare support they required. People were provided with a variety of meals which they told us they enjoyed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were involved in decisions and their choices were respected. Information was presented in a way people could understand.
People had opportunities to take part in stimulating and enjoyable activities. Consideration was given to people’s specific interests and how participation within the local community could be encouraged. Care plans were person-centred which ensured support was provided in a consistent way that was led by people.
People and staff spoke positively of the management team. The service was well-run by a registered manager who was passionate about ensuring people received the support they required and engaged with the community. Regular feedback on the service provided was requested from people and relatives.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (report published 12 January 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Our previous inspection of 5 Whitby Road took place in August 2015, when the service was given an overall rating of requires improvement. There was no registered manager at that time and improvements were required to ensure that systems and processes were operated effectively to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service and risks to people’s health and wellbeing. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014, Good Governance, and we required that the provider made improvements. After the inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. This said that the required improvements would be completed by April 2016
North Yorkshire County Council – 5 Whitby Road is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 40 people. The home focuses on providing care to older people. At the time of this inspection the home was providing care to 33 older people.
The service had a registered manager, who had registered with us during December 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.
People and their relatives told us people were safe at the home. Risks to people living and working at the service had been assessed by the manager since out last inspection, to help keep people safe.
Staff knew what to do if they had concerns about someone’s welfare or suspicions of abuse. Safeguarding alerts had been made appropriately when needed.
There were enough staff on duty to support people safely and the manager had flexibility to change staffing in response to increases in dependency, occupancy or to facilitate outings. The registered provider’s recruitment process reduced the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
People’s medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff competency checks and medicine audits took place. However, we have recommended that the provider considers making improvements to records relating to ‘as required’ medicines and the administration of creams, taking into account the latest guidance.
Staff received training and support relevant to their roles. This included encouragement to complete formal qualifications and regular supervision and appraisal. People spoke positively about the staff and their approach.
Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The manager knew how to seek authorisation under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to deprive people of their liberty when needed.
People received a varied choice of meals, snacks and drinks throughout the day. Nutritional needs were screened and people’s weights were monitored. Staff supported people to eat if needed and equipment was provided to help people remain independent.
Staff supported people to access other healthcare professionals to maintain and improve their health. This included the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals when needed.
People and their relatives spoke positively about the care they received. Staff were described as kind and caring. Staff knew people well and chatted to people in a friendly way. There were no restrictions on visiting, other than individual arrangements specifically requested and agreed by a person using the service.
People and their relatives had been involved in reviewing their care needs and care plan. Records included information about people’s wishes and preference and decisions they had made about their care.
A varied programme of group and individual activities took place, including trips outside of the home. These were facilitated by three members of staff, who provided support with activities and social interaction seven days a week.
A complaints procedure was in place and people and their relatives said they would feel confident raising any issues if needed.
People who used the service, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. There was a pleasant, warm atmosphere at the home and people told us they were satisfied with the care provided.
Audits and checks took place and there were plans for further improvements to the environment and care planning systems. People had been consulted and asked for feedback about the service.
The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events by submitting notifications in line with legal requirements. The provider had also clearly displayed their inspection rating since the last inspection.
This inspection took place on 6 August 2015 and was unannounced. At out last inspection on 12 February 2014 we found a breach of Regulation 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2010 which related to record keeping. At this inspection we saw that there had been improvements in some records but others were not completed and up to date.
At this inspection we saw that the service had sought the views of people who used the service in order to learn from them and make improvements but had not included relatives or staff in the surveys. Audits had been used to monitor areas of the service and improve some of them but they had not identified where improvements were needed to care plans and risk assessments. While we saw some improvements there was room for further improvement in a number of areas. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 and you can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
North Yorkshire County Council operates 5 Whitby Road which is in the town of Pickering. The service can accommodate up to 40 older people who require assistance with personal care. It is located close to local facilities and transport routes. There is a small car park for visitors to use. On the day we inspected there were 30 people using the service.
The registered manager who previously worked at this service had retired and another manager had been recruited and was in the process of applying for their registration with the commission. 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 at this service were not consistently safe because risks to their health and wellbeing had not always been identified and acted upon. We have recommended that the provider look at good practice guidance around risk assessment and management plans.
Staff had been recruited safely with checks being made as to their suitability to work in this setting.
They were trained in subjects which enabled them to provide care for people who used the service and were well supported by managers. Staff had been trained in recognising abuse and knew how to report any incidents.
The equipment and premises were maintained to a safe standard. Equipment was serviced and maintained regularly.
Medicines were managed safely and staff who administered medicines had received appropriate training.
The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.
People told us that they felt cared for and that their family and friends could visit them whenever they wished. While people felt the manager and staff were approachable and that they could raise issues with them, they were not all aware of the formal complaints procedure available.
We looked at staffing levels during the inspection because concerns had been raised with us that staffing levels may have not been suitable to meet people's needs and that staff may be working excessive hours. We observed that there were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. Staff we spoke with told us that people received the care and support they required and were never neglected. Staff said they worked as a team to support people.
The manager monitored the quality of the service provided to people. Medication audits had been improved since our last inspection and were now taking place more regularly. However, this service still remains none compliant with the management of outcome people's medicines.
A person we spoke with said 'Staff help me with medicines. They bring the pills round and give you them.' However, we found that the medication systems in operation within the home did not protect people's health and wellbeing. We have asked the provider to address this.
During the inspection we saw that there were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. One person said 'The staff do an amazing job. They are on the go all the time.' Another person said 'If staff are busy I may have to wait a minute. They can be short staffed due to sickness at times.' We saw that staffing levels were being constantly monitored by the manager.
People told us they were asked about the quality of service they received. General monitoring of all aspects of the service was in place, however, this had not been effective in relation to the medication systems. Records relating to medication need to be improved.
People had care plans and risk assessments in place which helped staff to understand and meet people's needs. We saw people were encouraged to maintain their independence. A person said 'The staff look after me well.'
People were being protected from abuse by staff who understood the signs and symptoms of abuse that they must look out for and act upon. A person we spoke with said 'I feel safe here.'
People told us they got help from staff in a timely way. We saw there was enough staff on duty on the day of our visit to look after people. Comments we received included 'The staff look after me well. They know what they are doing.' And 'The staff have the skills to look after me.'
People's views were being sought about the quality of the service provided. There was a complaints system in place. People we spoke with said 'If I were not happy with anything I would tell the manager.' We saw that people's views were being acted upon to make sure that people remained happy with the service they received.
People visiting the service told us that the staff were wonderful and always gave people the time they needed and never rushed what they were doing. A GP said that when the doctors are called in the staff are aware of the reason for the call and are knowledgeable about the people they are caring for.
Staff told us that they can access training when they required it and during their annual appraisal they identified training they wanted to do and whenever possible it was organised for them. They said the management team were supportive and always approachable if they needed to discuss anything.