You are here

Yeovil - Sherborne House Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2020

About the service

Yeovil – Sherborne House Care Home is a care home and provides personal or nursing care for older people and those living with dementia. The home can accommodate a maximum of 38 people. Of the 38 bedrooms, 19 had a sink and a separate toilet, and there were three communal bathrooms spread over two floors. At the time of the inspection 35 people lived at the home. The home also had a separate pathway unit they called “The Wing.” The wing accommodated nine out of the 35 people. This unit was for people who had been discharged from hospital to be assessed prior to them either going home or moving into alternative accommodation. The wing was staffed by two NHS staff members, one occupational therapist, and one physiotherapist. The NHS staff carried out the needs assessments when people came to the home and Altogether Care provided the accommodation and care staff to deliver the regulated activity.

Some people we met at Sherborne House were not able to communicate with us verbally. We therefore used our observations of care, and our discussions with staff, relatives, and professionals to help form our judgements.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service had a home manager but there was no manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. The home manager did not understand their role fully. Quality monitoring systems included audits and regular checks of the environment to ensure people received good care. These were not effective; the service did not have an effective governance system in place

Medicine management was not robust, staff did not follow the providers medicine management policy and people did not receive their medicines safely.

The service did not have a homely feel. Soft furnishings such as curtains were hanging off the rails and people’s rooms were sparse and looked clinical. One person’s room had large chairs in the middle of the room and was not safe. People were all issued with plastic cups and the dining room door was locked to prevent people accessing it during the day.

People were supported by staff that were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff understood the needs of the people they supported and knew them well. All the feedback we received from people, their relatives and healthcare professionals was positive.

Risks of abuse to people were minimised. Assessments of people’s needs identified known risks and risk management guidance was produced for staff which they understood.

The provision of activities within the service was extensive and people could take part in multiple activities, but they did not always reflect personal hobbies and interests.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection (and update) The last rating for this service was good (published 22 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to the management of the service, and medicines management, at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was not effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.