You are here

The Augustinian Nursing Sisters Ince Blundell Hall Good

We are carrying out checks at The Augustinian Nursing Sisters Ince Blundell Hall. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 October 2017

Ince Blundell Hall provides accommodation, support and nursing care for up to 22 people. The service is owned and managed by the Augustinian Nursing Sisters, several of whom have lived and worked in the service for many years. The service admits people for long term care but also offers short term support for people who require respite care.

This inspection was carried out over two days on 6 and 7 September 2017 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection in June 2016 we found the service in breach of three regulations the service was given a quality rating of ‘Requires improvement’. We followed this up in November 2016 and found improvements had been made and all three breaches were met. The service remained ‘Requires improvement’ as we needed to ensure consistency would be maintained.

At this inspection we found consistent standards were being maintained, although there had been a recent change in the leadership of the home.

There was a new manager in post who had commenced working at the home two months prior to our inspection. The previous registered manager had left in June 2017. The manager was yet to register with the Commission (CQC). 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.

We found medicines were being safely managed. The administration records for some medicines such as external applications [creams] and prescribed ‘thickeners’ for drinks (for people with swallowing difficulties) could be further improved.

We looked at how staff were recruited and the processes to ensure staff were suitable to work at Ince Blundell Hall. We saw required checks had been made to help ensure staff employed were ‘fit’ to work with vulnerable people.

We found there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s care needs.

Care was organised so any risks were assessed and plans put in place to maximise people’s independence whilst help ensure people’s safety.

The staff we spoke with described how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported. Training records confirmed staff had undertaken safeguarding training in-house. All of the staff we spoke with were clear about the need to report any concerns they had.

Arrangements were in place for checking the environment to ensure it was safe. For example, health and safety checks were completed on a regular basis so hazards could be identified. Maintenance was assessed and planned well so that people were living in a comfortable and safe environment.

The home was clean and there were systems in place to manage the control of infection.

Staff said they were supported through induction, appraisal and the home’s training programme.

We found the home supported people very well to provide effective outcomes for their health and wellbeing. We saw there was regular and effective referral and liaison with health care professionals when needed to support people. Feedback from visiting health care professionals we spoke with was positive.

People we spoke with said they were happy living at Ince Blundell Hall. Staff interacted well with people living at the home and they showed a caring nature with appropriate interventions to support people. We found a caring ethos throughout the service.

People told us their privacy was respected and staff were careful to ensure people’s dignity was maintained.

Staff sought consent from people before providing support. When people were unable to consent, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed in that an assessment of the person’s mental capacity was made. People felt involved in their care and there was evidence in the care files to show how people had been included i

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 October 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were administered safely. Some administration records could be better developed and this was being considered.

Staff had been appropriately checked when they were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

We found there were protocols in place to protect people from abuse or mistreatment and staff were aware of these.

There were enough staff on duty at all times to help ensure people’s care needs were consistently met.

There was good monitoring of the environment to ensure it was safe and well maintained. We found that people were protected because any environmental hazards were routinely monitored.

The home was clean and there were systems in place to manage the control of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff told us they were supported through induction, appraisal and the home’s training programme.

We found the service supported people to provide effective outcomes for their health and wellbeing.

Staff sought consent from people before providing support. When people were unable to consent, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed in that an assessment of the person’s mental capacity was made.

We saw people’s dietary needs were managed with reference to individual preferences and choice.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 October 2017

The service was caring.

Staff displayed reassuring and effective communication when interacting with people.

People told us their privacy was respected and staff were careful to ensure people’s dignity was maintained.

People told us they felt involved in their care and could have some input into the running of the home.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were being reviewed and monitoring of people’s care evidenced an individual approach to care.

Social activities for people continued to be developed.

A process for managing complaints was in place and people we spoke with and relatives knew how to complain.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 October 2017

The service was well led.

There was a new manager in post who provided an effective lead for the home and who had developed a positive culture of care in the home. The manager was in the process of applying for registration.

The vision and values of the service were strongly evidenced through the homes literature including the Statement of Purpose.

The managers were able to evidence a range of quality assurance processes and audits carried out at the home.