Coton House

The provider continues to provide a ‘good’ service. People are kept safe by staff who understand how to safeguard people from abuse and are able to manage risks. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people and staff were recruited safely. There were suitable infection control practices in place and medicines were managed safely.

People were supported by staff who were trained and knew how to uphold people rights in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink and had access to healthcare services where required. The design and décor of the service met people’s needs.

Staff were kind, caring and treated people with dignity. People were encouraged to remain independent where possible and were supported to be involved in their care. People were supported by staff who knew them well and supported them to access activities that met their interests. Complaints made had been investigated and resolved.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and action was taken where areas for improvement had been identified. People were given opportunity to feedback on their experience of the service.

More Information is in the detailed findings below.

Rating at last inspection: Good (02 June 2016)

About the service: Coton House is a residential care home that was providing support to 29 older people at the time of the inspection.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Coton House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 29 people who require personal care and support. On the day of the inspection there were 29 people living at the home. There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 safe. Staff knew how to identify possible signs of abuse and were confident in their knowledge of reporting procedures. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and respond to people when required. People received their medicines as prescribed by their GP and medicines were stored and managed safely.

People received support from staff who had received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required for their roles. People were asked for their consent before care and support was provided. People expressed mixed views about the food, some people were happy with the menus and others felt portion sizes were too small and meals needed to be improved. People were supported to access relevant healthcare agencies when required.

People were supported by staff who had a caring approach and were friendly. Staff understood people’s preferences and individual needs. Staff treated people with respect and supported people in a way that maintained their privacy. Relatives and friends were welcomed and staff kept them updated about their family member’s health and well-being.

People were involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff understood people’s individual preferences and respected people’s cultural identities. People were involved in activities and staff supported people to participate in things that interested them. People knew how to complain if they were unhappy about the care they had received and the provider had systems in place to manage and respond to complaints.

People and relatives felt the service was well managed. Staff were able to contribute ideas about how the service could be improved. The management team carried out audits to assess the quality of the care and support provided and the registered manager and provider were aware of their responsibilities and had notified us of things they were required to do by law.

People received person centred care which met their needs. We saw staff provide care and support throughout the day. One person said, 'This place is just excellent. The culture and practice is honourable.'

The environment was suitable and appropriate for people who lived there. We found that bedrooms were personalised to meet people's taste and preferences. Systems were in place to highlight any issues related to the environment and improvements were made.

We found that selection and recruitment processes were clear and consistent. Staff had necessary checks carried out before they started working with people at the home. One staff member said, 'I had to wait until all the checks came back before I could start.'

Robust systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. We found that complaints and comments were taken seriously and action was taken to make improvements. One person told us, 'They always take things on board and make changes for the better.'

We saw that people were well presented and wore clothes that reflected their own preferences, style, and gender. We saw staff promote people's independence in different ways. We found that people were involved with their care planning and delivery. One person said, 'I have seen my care plan, they go through it with us.'

We found that people's care records provided an overview of people's needs and preferences. We found that people were involved in a range of different activities throughout the day. One person told us, 'I am very content here.'

We found that arrangements were in place to ensure that people were safeguarded from abuse.

We found that medicines were stored, recorded, and administered in a safe and timely manner.

We found that there were enough skilled staff to look after people's needs. We saw positive interactions between staff and people living at the home. One person said, 'The staff here are brilliant.'

We found that people knew how to complain, although all the people we spoke with did not have any concerns. One person said, 'This place is good otherwise I would not have been here this long.'