You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 January 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Collinson House Care Home is a 'care home' providing accommodation, and personal care. It is registered to provide a service for up to 29 people. The service was supporting 24 people at the time of the visit. The home is set over two floors.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The communal parts of the home were clean and well maintained. We observed staff wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly.

¿ Professionals and staff entered and left the home in a safe way. People were supported to speak with their relatives on the phone and with tablets.

¿ Staff received regular COVID-19 tests and people had monthly COVID-19 tests as per government guidance.

¿ Staff were allocated to permanent floors and the laundry staff followed the government guidance with the processing of laundry from COVID-19 positive people.

Inspection carried out on 24 January 2018

During a routine inspection

This unannounced comprehensive inspection was carried out on 24 and 25 January 2018, and was concluded on 01 February 2018.

Collinson Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home accommodates up to 29 people with a range of care needs including those living with dementia. People are accommodated over two floors, with all communal areas on the ground floor. At the time of the inspection, 28 people were being supported by the service, with one person in hospital.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support an overall rating of ‘good’, and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. The provider had made further improvements in their medicines management, care planning, and quality monitoring systems to ensure that people received consistently safe, effective and good quality care. The exceptional leadership and management of the service fostered a culture that encouraged collaborative working and openness. The registered manager provided stable leadership and effective support to the staff. People, relatives and staff’s feedback was listened to and improvements made in a timely way. The registered manager and the provider were keen on further exploring innovative ways of ensuring that they were the best care home in the local area. The provider made financial resources available to achieve this, resulting in positive care outcomes for people using the service.

People were safe because there were effective risk assessments in place, and systems to keep them safe from abuse or avoidable harm. There was sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. Staff took appropriate precautions to ensure people were protected from the risk of acquired infections. People’s medicines were managed safely, and there was evidence of learning from incidents.

People’s needs had been assessed and they had care plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. Staff had regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs effectively. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being met, and staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care and support being provided. People had been supported to have enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were also supported to access healthcare services when required.

People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff regularly reviewed the care provided to people with their input to ensure that this continued to meet their individual needs in a person centred way. The provider had an effective system to handle complaints and concerns. A variety of activities that people enjoyed were provided, and people were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. People were supported to remain comfortable, dignified and pain-free at the end of their lives.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 26 October 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection on 26 October 2015. During our previous inspection in November 2014, we had found that the provider did not always provide a service that was safe, compassionate and responsive to peoples’ needs. Also, their quality monitoring systems had not been used effectively to drive improvements. However, at this inspection, we found the required improvements had been made and there was evidence that they were striving to further develop the service.

The service provides care and support for up to 29 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia, mental health issues and physical disabilities. On the day of our inspection, 26 people were being supported by the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People were safe and the provider had effective systems in place to safeguard them. Staff had been trained to safeguard people and were able to identify when people required additional support.

There were personalised risk assessments in place that gave guidance to the staff on how risks to people could be minimised. Risks associated with day to day running of the service had been well managed.

People’s medicines were managed safely and administered by trained staff in a timely manner.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff had received supervision, support and effective training that enabled them to support people appropriately. The manager and staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to providing care in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported to have sufficient food and drinks. They were also supported to access other health and social care services when required.

People were supported by staff who were caring, kind and friendly. They were passionate about ensuring that people lived happy and fulfilled lives.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual preferences, and choices. They were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. Interesting and varied activities were also provided within the home.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people, their representatives, and health and social care professionals. They acted on the comments received to continuously improve the quality of the service.

The registered manager provided stable leadership and managerial oversight. They encouraged staff involvement in the development of the service. They had been instrumental in making the required improvements identified during our previous inspection and had used the provider’s quality monitoring processes effectively to drive continuous improvements.

Inspection carried out on 20 November 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on 20 November 2014 and was unannounced.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 29 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia, mental health issues and physical disabilities. On the day of our inspection, there were 22 people supported by the service and three others were in hospital.

At the last inspection on 14 May 2014, we had told the provider to make improvements to ensure that there were sufficient night staff to provide care safely, particularly when people were awake and in communal areas in the morning. Although we saw that additional were available when necessary, we found the provider had not recently reviewed the staffing levels to reflect the changes in the needs of people who used the service.

The service is required to have a registered manager in post. 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 our inspection, there was a new manager in post and they had commenced the process to register with the Care Quality Commission.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of people’s individual care and treatment needs, preferences, and choices.

People were not always supported to pursue their hobbies and interests.

People were supported to have sufficient and nutritious food and drinks and to access other health and social care services when required. They were also enabled to maintain close relationships with their family members and friends.

There were risk assessments and systems to safeguard people, so that the risk of harm to people could be minimised. Medicines were managed safely.

The staff had received appropriate training and support, and they understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider had effective recruitment processes in place.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to enable them to improve the quality of the service.

The provider did not always effectively use their quality monitoring and environmental risk management systems to effectively drive improvements.

Inspection carried out on 14 May 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out a responsive early morning inspection at Collinson Care Home after receiving information of concern about the service.

We found that the home was not meeting all the minimum standards required.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in a safe and well maintained home. We found that the home was cleaned regularly and infection control checks were carried out by the home manager to ensure that people were protected against the risk of infection. We saw that the home had call bells in place and that staff responded quickly when a call bell sounded. Risk assessments had been put in place for people and staff were aware of the risks and how to manage them and protect people who use the service. We did however find that people were not always protected during the night and early morning. We found that some people using the service did not always sleep through the night and would remain in communal areas. These areas were left unsupervised at night when staff carried out two to one care. This meant that people seated in the communal areas were at risk of harm.

Is the service effective?

We observed the care that was provided to people and from our conversations with both staff and people using the service we saw that people were happy in their surroundings and were able to move about the home freely. People we spoke with told us that 'staff don't have time' but that they did their work well. Staff told us that they felt supported and were able to spend time with people. We saw that the care plans were regularly reviewed and contained detailed information about the person and their needs which meant that staff were kept aware of people�s needs and were therefore able to provide the correct care and support.

Is the service caring?

We observed and were also told by people who used the service that the staff were kind and caring. One person said, �they treat me as their own�. We observed during our inspection that staff listened to people and responded to their requests quickly. We observed staff interacting with people. We saw that staff when administering medication were patient and advised people on the medication being given. Staff told us that they would always put the needs of the person first rather than follow daily tasks. This showed that the care being provided was person centred and not task led.

Is the service responsive?

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly by the manager to ensure that they could respond quickly to any changes in people�s needs. We saw that people�s needs were attended to by the staff. We saw that on the day of our inspection a person was due to return from hospital and required significant changes to be made to their care needs. We saw that staff were aware of the changes and that the senior staff and manager were updating the person's care plan to reflect the person�s needs.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us that the manager was 'very good and experienced'. Staff told us that the manager was �hands on� and did not stay in the office but would rather spend time with people who used the service. They also said that the owner visited the home regularly and spent time with people and would always call at weekends to ensure that all was ok within the home. We saw from notices within the staff rooms that management were always on call and available out of hours. This was also confirmed by staff. We saw that the manager was continuously monitoring the effectiveness of the care through audits and daily checks.

Inspection carried out on 2 April 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit to the home on 2 April 2013 we spoke with four service users, two of their relatives, seven staff and three visiting professionals.

Staff that we spoke with gave clear examples of how they would gain consent from people and where this was not possible, when the Mental Capacity Act should be applied. We saw records that showed us that equipment used was properly maintained, suitable for its purpose and used appropriately. We saw there was equipment available in sufficient quantities to attend to the needs of the people who used the service.

People we spoke with during this visit told us they were happy with the staff who cared for them. One visiting relative said "They are unbelievably good here." We also spoke with three visiting professionals one of whom told us they felt the staff were �very helpful and cooperative.�

We saw the results of a satisfaction survey completed by the home in late 2012 and minutes from residents and staff meetings. We checked to see if actions from these had been followed up, which they had been. People we spoke with told us that the manager was open to feedback, listened to them and acted appropriately to constantly improve the service. One person said, "They have done what they said they would do.� This meant that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people�s safety and welfare.

Inspection carried out on 3 May 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People told us they were happy with the staff and the way that they helped them. They said if they needed anything at all the staff would always go out of their way to help them.

We were told that the food was good and people were happy with the choices available.

People told us that people were happy with their rooms and that everything was in good working order.

One person using the service said that they were very happy and they liked that the home was small and personal.

Inspection carried out on 13 February 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our visit on 13 February 2012, we spoke with all seven people who live at Collinson Care Home. They were not all able to tell us about their experiences of living at the home, but we observed staff providing care to some of them. We saw that staff provided support to people in a kind, patient and respectful way. The people who were able to tell us about the service they received at the home told us they were happy living there.

People told us that the food served at the home was of good quality and that there were choices of meals of offer. We saw that the dining room was pleasant and inviting. The tables were nicely set and people told us that this was always the case.

People who living at the home told us they trusted the staff and made positive comments about them. One person told us, �The staff are a good laugh. We need that.� People said that staff responded swiftly when they called for assistance.

Although staff had received training in most of the key areas, and were knowledgeable about individuals needs, not all staff were sufficiently competent in their roles. For instance, we found shortfalls in relation to medication administration and staff knowledge of local safeguarding procedures. Following our visit the provider told us they were taking action to address these issues. This action will be assessed during our next review.

Inspection carried out on 28 November 2011

During a routine inspection

During our visit on 29 November 2011, we spoke with six people who received a service at Collinson Care Home. They all told us they were happy with the care provided and made positive comments about the staff who they said were attentive to their needs, listened to them, and looked after them well.

People living at the home said that staff responded when they called for assistance. However, during our visit we noticed periods of time when no staff were available in the communal areas to offer support and supervision to people.

During our visit we saw people living in the home were encouraged to keep occupied. There were photographs around the home of various activities that people had been involved in including making Halloween pumpkins and cake baking. We saw some people playing games and colouring in pictures. Other people were writing Christmas cards, and watching television.

We were told that there was always plenty of good quality food that was served at the correct temperature. However, although there was a menu displayed with choices for lunch and teatime meals, people described a, �Set menu� and told us they were not offered a choice of food at meal times although alternatives were offered when people did not eat their meal.

Although people told us they received their medication when they required it, we found that medication was not always given at the times the doctor had prescribed it.

We found the home was warm, clean and nicely decorated. It was generally well maintained and there was some signage around the home to help people to find their way.

People told us that the manager regularly spoke with them and provided opportunity for them to raise issues should they wish too. Overall, people told us they were happy with the service they received at Collinson Care Home, trusted the staff, and felt that if they had any concerns, these would be addressed by the manager.