You are here

Rustington Convalescent Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The inspection took place on 2 and 8 June 2016 and was unannounced.

Rustington Convalescent Home is a Grade II listed building located on the Sussex coast. It is registered to provide accommodation, nursing care and support for up to 30 people. The home primarily provides short term convalescence following an operation, accident or illness, although short term respite care is also provided. In the Provider Information Return (PIR), the registered manager stated that, ‘The homes vision is to support people who stay with us so they are able to regain their independence and this is achieved with their involvement so we are all working towards the same goal.’ The home has 26 single rooms and two twin rooms, which are usually reserved for married couples. Many of the bedrooms have sea views. At the time of our visit there were 23 people staying at the home.

We found that Rustington Convalescent home had some elements of outstanding that could be expanded upon to give a rating of outstanding. We recommend that the provider refers to the guidance and characteristics of outstanding on our website.

Rustington Convalescent Home has well-furnished lounges, a large conservatory, dining room, television room and activity room. The home has extensive landscaped grounds, with a summerhouse and terrace, which are accessible to people staying at the home. The home offers a combination of nineteenth century Grade II listed building with modern facilities, including Wi-Fi.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

People were protected from risks to their health and wellbeing. Up to date plans were in place to manage risks, without unduly restricting people’s independence.

People said they felt safe at the service and knew who they would speak to if they had concerns. The service followed the West Sussex safeguarding procedure, which was available to staff. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in reporting any suspicion of abuse.

People were treated with respect and their privacy was promoted. Staff were caring and responsive to the needs of the people they supported. People's health and well-being was assessed and measures put in place to ensure people's needs were met in an individualised way. The focus of the home was rehabilitation and to provide people with the skills they needed to return home. Staff completed a comprehensive discharge summary, a copy of which was sent to people’s GPs or hospital consultants. This included specific details of any community follow up that may be required, for example a referral to a district nurse to monitor any surgical wounds.

People were encouraged to safely self-administer their medicines. People had enough to eat and drink throughout the day and night. The mealtime was an inclusive experience. After people had finished their meal many remained in the dining room chatting and drinking tea and coffee.

There was an open and friendly culture combined with a dedication to providing the best possible care to people. Staff at all levels were approachable, knowledgeable, professional, keen to talk about their work and committed to the on-going development of the home. The atmosphere in the home was happy and calm. People were engaged and occupied; they were interacting with each other and chatting. Every person we spoke to, without exception was extremely complimentary about the caring nature of the management and staff.

Staff received training to enable them to do their jobs safely and to a good standard. They felt the support received helped them to do their jobs well.

There were enough staff on duty to support people with their assessed needs. The regis

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was safe

Risks to people had been assessed and appropriate measures were in place to manage the risk, without unduly restricting people�s independence.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide care and meet people�s individual needs in an unhurried manner.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse.

People told us they felt safe living at the home.

People were assisted and educated to administer their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received the training, support and supervision they needed to be able to provide safe and effective care.

All the people at the home had capacity to make their own decisions; the home did not cater for people who lacked capacity.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and high importance was placed on ensuring people had a pleasant mealtime experience. People enjoyed their meals and each other�s company.

People health needs were assessed and monitored and appropriate referrals were made to other professionals, where necessary.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that were committed to providing high quality care. Staff were quick to help and support people.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible, relearn skills and make their own decisions. They were treated with kindness and respect; their dignity and privacy were upheld.

There was a friendly and relaxed atmosphere in the service with good conversation and rapport between staff and people.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was responsive to people�s needs.

People�s care was delivered in a highly person centred way by staff who understood them. People were given the information they needed and were encouraged to make choices. There was a clear focus on rehabilitation.

People were occupied and stimulated during their stay at the home.

People were encouraged to raise any concerns and give feedback regarding their stay. Complaints were investigated and action taken to make improvements.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was well-led.

The registered manager provided strong, clear leadership and ensured an enabling and person-centred culture was firmly embedded in the service.

Staff told us they were well managed, were treated with respect and were listened to. Morale was high and staff took great pride in their work.

Systems were in place to effectively monitor the quality and safety of the service. There was a clear commitment from all staff to the continuous improvement of the service.

There was an open culture in the service, focussing on the people who used the service. Staff felt comfortable to raise concerns if necessary.