You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 November 2018

This inspection took place on the 5 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Normanhurst EMI Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 18 older people who are living with dementia or require support with their mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were eleven people living there.

At the last inspection in August 2017 the overall rating for Normanhurst EMI Home was Requires Improvement as more work was needed to ensure their quality assurance system identified areas where improvements were required. Such as the provision of relevant training in moving and handling and record keeping. At this inspection we found these areas had been addressed and the overall rating had improved to Good.

The registered manager of Normanhurst EMI Home is also the registered manager for Normanhurst Care Home and was present during the inspection. 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. The providers for the service are Mr David Lewis and Mr Robert Hebbes. They also own Normanhurst Nursing Home and Normanhurst Care Home.

An effective quality assurance system enabled management to audit the care plans and other records, such as medicines, accidents and incidents, cleaning and infection control, to identify trends and take action when needed. People and relatives told us the staff were very good; they offered the support and care people needed and involved them in discussions about driving forward improvements at the home.

Risk had been assessed and staff supported people to remain independent, active and safe, as they moved around the home using walking aids and with staff assistance. Staff had completed relevant training, including medicines, infection control and safeguarding. They demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs, how to protect people from harm and what action they would take if they had any concerns. Supervision and staff meetings kept staff up to date with current best practice and they were aware of their roles and responsibilities. Robust recruitment procedures ensured only suitable staff were employed and there were enough staff working in the home to provide the care people needed.

Care plans were written and agreed with people and their relatives, if appropriate. They included physical and mental health needs with risk assessments and clear guidance for staff to follow to ensure they had the care they needed. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and wishes. They explained clearly how people made decisions about the care provided and we observed staff listened to people and acted on their requests.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consistently asked if people needed support or assistance. The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS applications had been requested when required to ensure people were safe.

From August 2016 all organisations that provide NHS care or adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The standard aims to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss are provided with information that they can easily read or understand so that they can communicate effectively. Staff were aware that people had different communication needs and were able to explain how they supported people to communicate.

People said the food was

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 November 2018

The service is safe.

Risk to people had been assessed and staff supported people to be independent and take risks safely.

Recruitment practices were robust, only suitable staff were employed and there were enough staff working at the home to meet people�s needs.

Staff had attended safeguarding training and demonstrated an understanding of abuse and how to protect people from harm.

Medicines were administered safely and administration records were up to date.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 November 2018

The service is effective.

Staff had attended training for Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty and were aware of current guidelines and their responsibilities.

People were supported to have a healthy diet, choices were available and people decided where to have their meals.

Staff arranged for people to see health and social care professionals when they needed to.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 November 2018

The service is caring.

Staff provided the support people wanted and treated them with respect.

People asked staff to provide the support they wanted and made choices decided where and how they would spend their time.

Visitors were made to feel very welcome and people were encouraged to maintain relationships with relatives and friends.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 November 2018

The service is responsive.

People received support that was personalised to meet their needs, wishes and preferences.

People were offered a choice of activities, which were available daily in each of the provider three homes.

A complaints procedure was in place and people and visitors knew how to raise concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 November 2018

The service is well led.

They quality assurance system was effective and enabled the registered manager to monitor the services provided.

Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities There were clear lines of accountability and the registered manager provided guidance and support to ensure people, visitors and staff worked together to develop the services.

Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff through regular meetings and satisfaction questionnaires.