• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Cooksditch House Nursing & Residential Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

East Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8AN (01795) 530156

Provided and run by:
Mrs G H Ilsley

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

24 May 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 24 May 2016 and was unannounced.

The service provided accommodation, personal and nursing care for up to 50 older people. The accommodation spanned two floors and a lift was available for people to travel between floors. There were 49 people living in the service when we inspected. Thirty people were accommodated in part of the service which was designed for people who needed nursing care. Nursing staff and care staff assisted people to manage chronic and longer term health issues associated with aging or after an accident or illness. This included compassionate end of life care. The other part of the service provided residential accommodation and care to 19 people who had lower care needs.

There was a registered manager employed at the service. 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.

Staff received training that related to the needs of the people they were caring for and nurses were supported to develop their professional skills maintaining their registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). However, the registered manager had not ensured that a consistent system was in place for staff supervisions, appraisals and nursing staff revalidations.

We have made a recommendation about this.

There were policies in place for the safe administration of medicines. Nursing staff were aware of these policies and had been trained to administer medicines safely.

Nursing staff assessed people’s needs and planned people’s care. They worked closely with other staff to ensure the assessed care was delivered. General and individual risks were assessed, recorded and reviewed. Infection risks were assessed and control protocols were in place and understood by staff to ensure that infections were contained if they occurred. End of life care was delivered by consent and mutually agreed with people and their families. Additional specialist end of life nursing guidance and training was provided by staff from a hospice.

The provider and registered manager ensured that they had planned for foreseeable emergencies, so that should emergencies happen, people’s care needs would continue to be met. Equipment in the service had been tested and well maintained.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. Restrictions imposed on people were only considered after their ability to make individual decisions had been assessed as required under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice. The registered manager understood when an application should be made. Decisions people made about their care or medical treatment were dealt with lawfully and fully recorded.

The registered manager had ensured that they employed enough nursing and care staff to meet people’s assessed needs. A robust agency back up system was in place. The provider had a system in place to assess people’s needs and to work out the required staffing levels. Nursing staff had the skills and experience to lead care staff and to meet people’s needs effectively and the registered manager provided nurses with clinical training and development.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and wellbeing. They had access to good quality foods and staff ensured people had access to food, snacks and drinks during the day and at night.

We observed safe care. Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse and showed a good understanding of what their roles and responsibilities were in preventing abuse. Nursing staff understood their professional responsibility to safeguard people. The registered manager responded quickly to safeguarding concerns and learnt from these to prevent them happening again.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and checked by the registered manager to see what steps could be taken to prevent these happening again. The risk was assessed and the steps to be taken to minimise them were understood by staff.

People had access to qualified nursing staff who monitored their general health, for example by testing people's blood pressure. Also, people had regular access to their GP to ensure their health and wellbeing was supported by prompt referrals and access to medical care if they became unwell.

Recruitment policies were in place. Safe recruitment practices had been followed before staff started working at the service. This included checking nurse’s professional registration.

We observed staff that were welcoming and friendly. People and their relatives described staff that were friendly and compassionate. Staff delivered care and support calmly and confidently. People were encouraged to get involved in how their care was planned and delivered. Staff upheld people’s right to choose who was involved in their care and people’s right to do things for themselves was respected.

If people complained they were listened to and the registered manager made changes or suggested solutions that people were happy with.

The registered manager of the service, nurses and other senior managers were experienced and provided good leadership. They ensured that they followed their action plans to improve the quality of the service. This was reflected in the changes they had already made within the service.

30 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We observed that staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff were polite and interacted well with people. Staff understood the needs of the people who lived in the home and supported them in line with the guidance in their care plans. This meant that people were provided with appropriate care and support that met their needs.

Staff understood the importance about asking people for their consent before any care and treatment was given. People we spoke with told us that staff always asked them what they needed help with.

Visitors we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care provided to their relatives. They told us, "They do an amazing job here". "They do their utmost to make sure people are well cared for". Nothing is too much trouble and they know what people's needs are".

We found that peoples complex and diverse needs were understood by the staff and were met. People were provided with a range of activities that they could choose to take part in if they wished.

People received the medication they needed at the time they needed it.

There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived in the home.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

Records were generally well maintained.

Overall we found that Cooksditch was compliant although we have made some comments that the provider may find useful to note.

8, 9 May 2012

During a routine inspection

The people we spoke with, and their relatives, were generally positive about the service provided. One relative told us 'it's been absolutely fantastic.' All 10 people using the service or their relatives that we spoke with said they were happy with the care provided. They were positive about most of the staff and said they were helpful.

The people we spoke with told us they were given choices, such as what they wanted to do, and what they wanted to eat. Most of the people we spoke with, and their relatives, said they felt able to express their concerns to the staff or manager.

People told us that they usually had enough to do. Some people told us that they liked to be involved in the activities provided in the home such as singing and music, but others chose not to. There were no planned activities available on the day of the inspection.

The people we spoke with in the residential wing said they were not happy about the lift being broken as it stopped them from doing what they wanted. However, they all said they had been told by the manager what was being done to fix it.