Archived: Daisy Bank Nursing Home

Updated 20 April 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 2 February 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors, a specialist tissue viability advisor and an expert by experience, who had experience of older people’s care and dementia services. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

We reviewed the information we held about the home, which included information we had received from the service. We spoke with commissioners and health professionals to understand their experiences of the service.

We spoke with 15 people who used the service, six relatives, four care staff, a nurse and the manager. We viewed nine records about people’s care and medication. We also looked at records that showed how the service was managed.

Updated 20 April 2015

We inspected Daisy Bank Nursing Home on 2 February 2015 which was unannounced. At the last inspection on 4 August 2014, we asked the provider to make improvements to the way they assessed people’s capacity to make informed decisions. We found that these actions had been completed.

Daisy Bank Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation with nursing for up to 32 people. At the time of the inspection the service supported 26 people. People who used the service had physical health and/or mental health needs, such as dementia.

The service did not have 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. At the time of the inspection there was a manager at the service who had been managing the service for approximately 10 months. At the last inspection we were told that they were planning to apply to be the registered manager. They also told us they had submitted an application, but this had not been received by us and we did not see any evidence to support this. This meant that the provider had not taken action to ensure that the conditions of their registration were met in a timely manner.

We found that there were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s assessed needs. However, on the day of the inspection there was a shortage of one care staff which meant interaction with people was limited.

Staff told us the management team were approachable and that they listened to them. People were encouraged to feedback their experiences and these were acted on to improve the quality of care provided. Some improvements were needed to ensure that people were aware of actions taken that resulted from their feedback.

We found that the manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, but some improvements were needed to ensure that this was kept up to date.

People told us that they felt safe when they were supported by staff. Staff were able to explain how they kept people safe from harm and the actions they needed to take if they felt someone was at risk of harm.

People received their medicines safely. Medicine records were completed and staff understood the procedures they needed to follow when supporting people with their medicines.

People’s risks were assessed. We saw that staff supported people in a safe way and they were aware of people’s individual risks.

Staff received regular training which ensured they had the knowledge and skills required to meet people’s needs. Staff told us that they felt supported by the manager.

People were involved in their care and consented to their plans of care. Some people who used the service were unable to make certain decisions about their care. We found that mental capacity assessments had been carried out in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider had followed the legal requirements where a person was being deprived of their liberty in accordance with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). We saw that decisions were made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves.

People told us that the quality of the food was good and they were given meal choices. We saw that assessments were in place to ensure that risks of malnutrition were reduced.

Staff treated people in a caring and kind way and respected their dignity. Staff listened to people’s wishes and supported them to make choices about their care.

People told us that staff knew how they liked there care provided. We found that staff understood people’s preferences in care and people’s social needs were being met.

The provider had an effective system in place to investigate and respond to complaints.