You are here

Archived: The Owls Care Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 18 March 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We last inspected The Owls Care Home in September 2014. At that time, we found people were not always protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not always maintained. During this inspection, we checked to see if systems and procedures had been put in place to address our concerns. We found the provider to be compliant. New procedures had been implemented to help ensure people who used the service were protected from this risk of inappropriate record keeping. Care plans had been updated and reviewed appropriately.

Inspection carried out on 8 September 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was led by one inspector. Information we gathered during the inspection helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us that the staff were patient and helpful. They said they responded quickly to any requests for help and supported them as they wanted. One person said, "Everyone one of these girls look after us well. They do a marvellous job and are so patient.�

We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity with staff assisting people in a sensitive manner. Care and support was provided in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People had the choice of spending time on their own or in the communal areas. When we inspected here were enough staff on duty to support people as they needed.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act. Staff were aware of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made but there had been errors with submissions. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to submitting applications.

Systems were in place to make sure that provider and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Service contracts were in place. Maintenance records we looked at showed that regular safety checks were carried out. Any repairs were completed quickly and safely. These measures ensured the home was maintained.

Is the service effective?

People confirmed and records showed that people were able to see their visitors in private and that friends and relatives could visit whenever they wished.

People�s health and care needs were assessed and reviewed with them. We saw that most care plans were up to date and reflected people�s current individual, dietary, cultural and religious needs. However some records had information missing to assist with managing behaviour that challenged. This meant that staff did not always have the up to date information they needed. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to meeting their care needs.

The individual needs of people were taken into account with the layout of the home enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises were suitable to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

Is the service caring?

People told us that they enjoyed living at The Owls care home and were comfortable there. One person told us, �They pop in to check I am alright and to see if I need anything. Sometimes I think I could manage at home but to be honest I know I am better off here being looked after and having my meals made for me. A relative said about the care of their family member, �The staff are so good to her and look after her so well.�

We saw the main meal being served at lunchtime. The mealtime was relaxed and unhurried with music playing in the background. Staff were attentive and supported people appropriately as they assisted them with their meals.

Most care plans were being maintained, and regularly updated, recording the care and support people were receiving.

People said they could make their views, ideas or concerns known to the provider and staff. One person said, �The staff here are so good. They will do anything for us and try to do everything we ask.� Relatives were also complimentary about the provider and staff team. A relative commented about the care given to their family member, �The staff here are always so kind and look after her so well. I have no complaints at all

Is the service responsive?

Staff assisted people with personal care discretely and sensitively and in a timely manner. Religious and cultural needs were taken into account and these were being met as people wanted. We observed people involved in daily living activities, social and leisure activities or chatting with staff. People said that they enjoyed the activities.

People said they had no complaints and were happy in the home. One person told us about the staff, �I only have to say I want something or don�t want something and they deal with it. They are good �girls� here.� A relative told us, �I have no qualms about the home or the staff. I can�t fault them. I have no problems with any of them.�

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records showed that any identified problems were addressed.

Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities and of the ethos of the home. They felt that they worked together effectively. Staff had regular meetings so were involved in decisions about the home. We were notified of any incidents or issues relating to the home in a timely manner.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

The home was non-compliant to outcome 14 at our last inspection. This was because The Owls training matrix and staff training files were unclear. We were only able to identify minimal provision of training to a few staff. Consequently, staff were not always fully supported to carry out their responsibilities.

The provider completed an action plan that demonstrated how the home intended to address their non-compliance. This highlighted an updated training matrix. Further submitted evidence demonstrated training that staff had completed since the last inspection.

We were informed that ten staff had received a variety of training and that further guidance would be provided on an ongoing basis. We were assured that this would then enable staff to continue to be able to carry out their duties effectively. Evidence provided showed that staff had received training in medication and safeguarding. Further training provision included manual handling, health and safety and valuing diversity.

The Owls had also undertaken training on infection control and food hygiene. This meant that staff were able to complete their additional responsibilities within the home to maintain cleanliness and safe food preparation.

Inspection carried out on 8 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke individually with the provider, deputy manager, staff and relatives of people receiving care at the home. We asked people to tell us about their experiences of living at The Owls. We reviewed care records, policies and procedures, audits and risk assessment documentation.

One relative told us, �I�m very happy my husband�s here � I couldn�t fault his care�. However, one relative said, �I�m unhappy with mum�s care and have tried to raise this�. When we discussed this with the provider and checked audits of complaints, it was clear that complaints were taken seriously. We observed care being provided in a respectful way because the staff and manager worked as an organised team. People appeared happy throughout our inspection.

The service demonstrated good practice that ensured a safe, clean environment. Care practice and record-keeping was underpinned by clear, regular auditing procedures.

However, although The Owls provided regular supervision to its staff, training records were poor. The provision of training was unclear, which was hindered by a training matrix that was not up-to-date. This meant staff were not always appropriately supported in relation to their responsibilities.

Inspection carried out on 27 July 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited The Owls and we spoke to several people and observed their care. Due to the ageing process and level of memory impairment of people living at the home we observed the interactions between people living in the home with one another and staff. Some people were no longer able to use words but we were able to observe their care. We saw that staff took the time to use people's preferred names and ask them if they wanted anything. Staff asked people to do things rather than tell them when they required support with personal care.

Two family members of a person living at the home said that their relative had recently moved into the home and had settled in quickly. They said this was their preferred place of care for their family member to be cared in. One family member said, �Dad�s had his name on the waiting list for months. The home was recommended by the mental health services. Mum�s just relived he�s settled and safe�.

Inspection carried out on 25 May 2012

During a routine inspection

Due to the level of people's cognitive and memory impairment we did not always receive specific comments about their care. We relied on our observations, discussions with relatives, staff and professionals.

We visited The Owls and we spoke to several people. Due to the ageing process and level of memory impairment of some people living at the home we observed how people interacted with each other and with staff on duty. Some people were no longer able to use words but we were able to observe their care. We saw that staff took the time to use people's preferred names and ask them if they wanted anything. Staff asked people to do things rather than tell them when they required support with personal care.

A family member of a person living at the home said that their relative was respected by staff. They said, "Mum's loved and cared for. I know she's happy and I'm happy".

We were told that staff were patient when providing personal care and people's dignity was promoted by staff at the home. A relative said, "Attention to detail and care is so good. If she spills a drink or gets her meals on herself she�s changed immediately. Mum likes to look nice and always does". The relative said that their famil member could make themself understood when they did not want to do some thing and that staff respected their choice. They said, "She�s nearly 90 and tired and doesn�t want to do much. I have asked that she doesn�t join in the activities. She doesn�t wants to and staff say she gets more agitated. Staff know her well".

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