You are here

Archived: Andrew Cohen House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The comprehensive inspection of this service took place on 4 and 5 January 2018. It was unannounced. At our last focussed inspection of this service we found it to be Requires Improvement in the key areas of Safe, Effective and Well Led, however there were no legal breaches of regulation at that time. Other key areas of Caring and Responsive were found to be Good.

Andrew Cohen House is a care home with nursing and can accommodate up to 59 people in one adapted building. The home specialises in providing care to people living with dementia in small separate units within the building. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

People were protected from potential abuse by staff that were trained and understood how to safeguard them. People had risks to their safety assessed and there were plans in place to reduce the risks, which staff understood and followed. There were sufficient staff that had been recruited safely to support people when they needed it. People received support to have their medicines as prescribed. There were systems in place to learn from incidents, or when things went wrong to avoid this happening again.

People had their needs assessed and were supported to meet them by trained well-supported staff. People had their nutrition and hydration needs met and had enjoyable mealtime experiences with lots of choice. The building was purpose built and designed to meet people's needs. People were supported to access health professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had good relationships with staff and were supported in a kind, caring and compassionate manner. People made choices about their care and support and were involved in decision making. People were supported in a way, which maintained their dignity, and staff were respectful.

People had their preferences met and staff understood people's needs.

There were opportunities for people to follow their interests and take part in a wide range of activities. People's communication needs were considered and they had support to follow their religious beliefs and cultural practices. People understood how to complain and complaints were responded to in line with the provider's policy. People had the opportunity to take part in discussions about their preferences for care and support at the end of their life.

A registered manager was in post and people, relatives and staff found they were accessible. People and their relatives had an opportunity to have say in how the home was run. The registered manager had checks in place to assess the quality of the service people received and ensure the management of the service was effective. The registered manager had a vision for the service and plans in place to make continual improvements.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded from potential abuse and risks to their safety were managed. People received support from staff that were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff to meet their needs. People had their medicines as prescribed and the home was clean and infection control measures were in place. The manager had a process in place to ensure the service learned from things that went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was effective.

People had their needs assessed and plans were in place for effective support. Staff were knowledgeable and received

training updates. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and could choose their meals. People had access to health professionals and received consistent care and support. People were supported in line with legislation and guidance for giving consent to their care and support.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and staff were compassionate and caring. People could make choices and were involved in decisions about their care and support. People were supported to maintain their independence and had their privacy and dignity maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People's preferences were understood and they were involved in their assessments, care plans and reviews. People were supported to take part in activities and follow their individual interests. People could be confident that any complaint would be listened to and acted on. People had opportunities for discussions about their wishes for end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was well led.

People felt able to express their views. Relatives were involved in the service and staff felt able to engage with the management

team. The registered manager understood their role and responsibilities and had developed a culture which encouraged learning. The quality of the care people received was monitored and the registered manager had checks in place to ensure people were supported effectively. The coordination between staff and other agencies was effective and people received consistent care.