You are here

Normanhurst Nursing Home Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at Normanhurst Nursing Home. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Reports


Inspection carried out on 31 July 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 31July and 01 August 2017 and was unannounced. There were 29 people living at Normanhurst Nursing Home when we inspected. People cared for were all older people. They were living with a range of nursing and care needs, including arthritis, stroke and heart conditions. Some people were also living with dementia. People needed support with most of their personal care, nutritional care and mobility needs. The home also provides end of life care and short stay respite care when required.

Normanhurst Nursing Home had accommodation provided over three floors. A passenger lift was available to support people in getting between each floor. A lounge and separate dining room were provided on the ground floor and there was a wheelchair accessible garden. The home was situated near the sea-front in Bexhill on Sea

There was a a registered manager. 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 were Mr David Lewis and Mr Robert Hebbes. They also owned Normanhurst Care Home and Normanhurst EMI Home.

Normanhurst Nursing Home was last inspected in June 2016. At this comprehensive the overall rating for this service was Requires Improvement. Four breaches of Regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 were identified. This was because audits of service provision had not identified a range of areas that needed to be improved. This included no audit of the training needs of staff to ensure they could meet peoples’ needs safely. Following the inspection, we received an action plan which set out what actions were to be taken to achieve compliance by August 2017.

This inspection on 31July and 01 August 2017 was to see if improvements had been made and embedded into practice. We found that many improvements had been made. However medicine practices need to be improved further to ensure medicines were given as prescribed and ensured peoples’ health and well-being was protected. We found multiple signature omissions for the month of July 2017, along with medicines being out of stock for essential medicines for up to five days. There were also some irregularities in respect of GP instructions and staff documentation.

Quality monitoring systems and daily documentation completed by staff needed further development to ensure best practice in all areas, for example, medicines and fluid intake charts.

We recommend that the service seeks advice from a reputable source to ensure that staff use the appropriate equipment for people with variable mobility.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Mental capacity assessments were completed in line with legal requirements. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been requested for those that required them. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The provider, registered manager and staff had an understanding of their responsibilities and processes of the MCA 2005 and DoLS.

People received care that person specific to reflect both their health and social care needs. Care plans had been reviewed and there was acknowledgement from the management team that there was still work to be done to ensure that all reflected peoples personal preferences. There were plans to review the organisational documentation that would streamline peoples care plans to ensure that they were easy for staff to use and access. Risk assessments that guided staff to promote people’s comfort, nutrition, skin integrity and the prevention of pressure damage were accurate. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff. Equipment used to prevent pressure damage was set correctly and people identified at risk from pressure damage had the necessary equipment to prevent skin damage. There were activities for people to participate in as groups or individually to meet their social and welfare needs.

Staffing numbers and the deployment of staff ensured that people were safe and supported to spend their day as they wished. There had been a consistent usage of agency staff as many permanent staff have left. However new staff were being recruited and the organisation were committed to further recruitment.

People were complimentary about the food at Normanhurst Nursing Home and the dining experience was an enjoyable experience for people. People were supported to eat and drink in a safe and dignified manner. The meal delivery ensured peoples nutritional and hydration needs had been met and offered a wide range of choice and variety of nutritious food.

The home was clean and well presented. Risks associated with the cleanliness of the environment and equipment had been identified and managed effectively.

There were arrangements for the supervision and appraisal of staff. Staff supervision took place to discuss specific concerns. Staff confirmed that they had regular supervision and yearly appraisals.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the caring nature of the staff. People told us care staff were kind and compassionate. Staff were respectful to people and there was plenty of chat and laughter heard.

People had access to appropriate healthcare professionals. Staff told us how they would contact the GP if they had concerns about people’s health.

People were protected, as far as possible, by a safe recruitment system. Each personnel file had a completed application form listing their work history as wells as their skills and qualifications. Nurses employed by the Normanhurst Nursing Home all had registration with the nursing midwifery council (NMC) which was up to date.

We found a breach of the HSCA 2014 Regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection carried out on 28 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 28 and 29 June, and 4 and 5 July 2016. It was unannounced. We inspected Normanhurst Nursing Home at the same time as we inspected the service’s sister homes, which were next door. There were 29 people living at Normanhurst Nursing Home when we inspected. People cared for were all older people. They were living with a range of nursing and care needs, including arthritis, stroke and heart conditions. Some people were also living with dementia. People needed support with most of their personal care, nutritional care and mobility needs. The home also provided end of life care.

Normanhurst Nursing Home had accommodation provided over three floors. A passenger lift was available to support people in getting between each floor. A lounge and separate dining room were provided on the ground floor and there was a wheelchair accessible garden. The home was situated near the sea-front in Bexhill on Sea

Normanhurst Nursing Home had a registered manager. 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 were Mr David Lewis and Mr Robert Hebbes. They owned Normanhurst Care Home and Normanhurst EMI Home.

Normanhurst Nursing Home was last inspected on 31 July 2014. No issues were identified at that inspection.

During their audits of service provision, the provider had not identified a range of areas. This included people not always being left with access to their call bells and audit of time taken by staff to respond when call bells were used. The provider had not audited the training plan to ensure all staff were trained in areas to meet people’s individual nursing and care needs. Recruitment systems were not audited to ensure that all staff folders included all required information and the provider’s policies were consistently followed.

Some staff had not been trained in their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Systems for ensuring people’s consent were not clear. Deprivation of Liberties (DoLS) applications were made, however there was a lack of best interest decisions documentation where people needed to have their liberties restricted, for example by the use of bed rails.

Assessments and care plans for people who had specific needs relating to living with dementia and need for engagement with activities required improvement. Some staff did not always fully engage with people who were frail and living with dementia. Other staff were responsive and consistently supported people in the way they needed.

Systems for supporting people with 'as required' (prn) medicines were not person-centred. In all other areas, registered nurses supported people in taking their medicines safely and ensured there were appropriate systems for storage of medicines.

There were fully established systems for ensuring people received the nursing and treatment care they needed. This included appropriate care of people’s wounds, and end of life care. There were effective systems for liaison with external healthcare professionals, where appropriate.

The registered manager was new in post and was developing a range of areas including audit of accidents and development of systems for staff supervision.

There were a wide range of meals offered to people. People commented favourably on the meals. Where people needed support with their food and drinks, they were helped in the way they needed.

People said they were supported by kindly, caring staff. They said there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs, and they felt safe in the home.

Staff said they were supported by the provider’s induction and training programme. Staff showed a clear understanding of how to protect people from risk, including risk of abuse.

We found a number of breaches of the HSCA 2014 Regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection carried out on 31 July 2014

During a routine inspection

A single adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff members told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People received appropriate care that met their needs based on a thorough assessment. People were cared for in an environment that identified and minimised risk.

Staff had the adequate training to quickly recognise and respond to emergency situations and could provide care and treatment which promoted people's safety and welfare.

The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Staff had attended relevant safeguarding training and were aware of how to access support when needed.

People using the service were being cared for safely by suitably qualified staff who were competent to carry out their role. Staff members followed a thorough induction and on-going training process which enabled them to deliver care safely.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to nursing homes. Where people needed to be prevented from leaving the home to maintain their safety, we saw that the provider did this in the least restrictive way. Deprivation of Liberty had been granted where appropriate. We saw that the necessary policies and procedures were in place and that they were being followed accordingly.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt settled in the home. It was clear during our visit that staff knew people well and understood their care and support needs.

Staff had received training to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Positive written feedback from people using the service demonstrated that the service was effective.

Is the service caring?

We found that people's routines were flexible and they were encouraged to make decisions about what they wanted to do. We saw that their choices were respected.

We saw that staff gave encouragement and support where needed to people using the service.

We observed staff members interacting with people in a positive way. We saw staff assisting people with activities and joining in with hobbies. The general environment of the home was welcoming and relaxed.

People we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support that they received from the service.

Is the service responsive?

The care records that we looked at during our inspection confirmed that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and needs had been identified and recorded.

People's preferences were recorded and acted upon and people were actively encouraged to pursue interests and hobbies. People were involved in various activities within the home and trips out.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place and had an awareness of their responsibilities for recording and dealing with complaints.

The provider responded to the views and comments of people who used the service and put improvements and changes into place appropriately.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had robust quality assurance processes in place. Staff were supported with regular team meetings and we saw evidence of staff receiving supervisions.

A member of staff told that they felt supported in their role and the manager was approachable. We observed that managers were knowledgeable of staff members’ training and development needs.

We saw evidence that managers consulted staff before implementing changes to the home and their views had been taken into consideration.

Inspection carried out on 4 April 2013

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of one of the registered managers appears as Doreen Longstaffe. This person was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

People that we spoke with told us they were happy living at the home. One person told us, “I’m very happy, you won’t find anything wrong here.” Another person said, “it’s not like home, but it is ok here and staff are kind.”

We looked at the care plans and saw that people were consulted before care was delivered. We saw that people’s care was delivered in line with their assessed needs and their individual care plan. We saw that staff knew people well and were kind and respectful when providing care.

We saw that the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely.

We spoke with staff and looked at staff files. We saw there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

The manager had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There was evidence that actions had been taken when concerns were raised.

Inspection carried out on 30 November 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We observed the medicines being given out at lunch time. We saw the method for administering medicines was safe.

We looked at the medicine administration record (MAR) charts and found some of the records were not complete. We looked at the supporting documents and found that these did not always match the prescribed medication on the MAR chart. The system in place for the recording of medicines was not safe.

We looked at the policies and procedures for ordering, storage and administration of medicines. We found that these were generic and did not meet the needs of the people who used the service.

We spoke with the care manager and the two nurses on duty. They said they had recognised some of the shortfalls with regard to managing medicines and had started to put systems in place to address them.

We spoke with three people who used the service. They said they were comfortable and the staff were very good. They made no specific comment about medication.

Inspection carried out on 29 August 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us they staff were kind and would do anything for them, they told us they could “ask for anything they liked”. People told us they were able to choose how to spend their days.

Organisation Review of Compliance