You are here

Archived: Firwood House Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

Firwood House provides intermediate care for up to 20 older people. It provides nursing and personal care for people who require a period of rehabilitation to recover from an injury or illness. For example following a fall, illness such as a stroke or surgery such as joint replacement. There were 13 people staying at the service at the time of the inspection. People who meet the admission criteria usually stay between two to six weeks. The aim of the service is to maximise people’s ability to live independent lives, improve their health and prevent admission to hospital. Firwood House is run by East Sussex County Council in conjunction with East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust.

There is a registered manager at the service. 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.

This was an unannounced inspection, which meant the provider, and staff did not know we were coming. It took place on 14 and 15 August 2017.

We previously inspected Firwood House in June 2016 where we rated the service ‘requires improvement’ however; there were no breaches of regulations. This was because we found some areas of practice that needed to improve. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made and improvements were now fully embedded into practice.

People were supported by staff who had taken the time to get to know people as individuals. They had a good understanding of their needs and the support they required to enable them to return to independent living. Staff cared about people, they treated them with compassion and respect. The service was a happy place and we observed relaxed conversations and humour between people and staff.

People were involved in decisions about their own care. They were supported to identify their own goals and what they needed to achieve to return home safely. People’s support plans contained information staff needed to support people appropriately.

There were enough support staff, nurses and therapists on each shift to safely meet people’s needs. Recruitment systems were established and only suitable staff were employed to work at Firwood House.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and knew what steps to take if they believed someone was at risk of abuse or harm.

Risks were managed safely. Risks to people had been identified and guidance provided for staff about keeping people safe but helping them to maintain their independence.

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

People were supported to eat and drink a variety of foods and maintain a healthy diet. Nutritional assessments were in place to identify people who may be at risk of malnutrition.

There was an effective training and supervision system in place. Staff competencies were regularly assessed. This meant people were cared for by staff that had received training and skills to meet their needs.

People had access to health care services to maintain their health and well-being.

There was clear leadership and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager was well thought of by people and staff. There was an open and positive culture which was focussed on ensuring people received good person-centred support and achieving their individual goals. Good communication and teamwork was evident. Staff described an open culture where their views were valued.

People’s feedback was actively sought and used to improve and develop the service. Any concer

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

Firwood House was safe.

There were systems in place to ensure the safe management, administration and storage of medicines.

There were safe recruitment practices in place and there were enough staff deployed each day to meet people�s needs safely.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse because staff were trained and knew what actions to take if they believed someone was at risk.

Risks to people had been identified, recorded and guidance provided for staff to manage these safely.

Firwood House was well maintained and clean and tidy throughout.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

Firwood House was effective.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. Nutritional assessments were in place to identify people who may be at risk of malnutrition.

People were cared for by staff that had received training and had the skills to meet their needs.

People had access to health care services to maintain their health and well-being.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

Firwood House was caring.

Positive, caring relationships had been developed between people and staff.

People were encouraged to express their views and were fully involved in decisions relating to their rehabilitation and support.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

Firwood House was responsive.

Support plans provided staff with detailed information about people and their support needs.

People were involved in planning their own goals and identifying what support they needed to return to independent living.

Feedback from people was sought and their views were listened to and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

Firwood House was well-led.

Good communication and teamwork was evident. Staff described an open culture where their views were valued.

There was clear leadership and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

Systems and processes for monitoring quality were effective in driving improvements.