You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 August 2018

This inspection took place on 21 June 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we would be attending.

The service was last inspected in May 2017 and was rated requires improvement. At that inspection we identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, in relation to good governance. We found records had not always been fully completed and contained gaps. We took action by requiring the provider to send us an action plan setting out how they would improve the service. When we returned for this inspection we found that records had improved and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

Ingleby 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. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Ingleby Care Home accommodates up to 56 people across two separate units, each of which have separate adapted facilities. One of the units specialised in providing care to people living with a dementia. At the time of our inspection 47 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 said they felt safe living at the service. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. Plans were in place to support people in emergency situations. The premises and equipment were clean and tidy and effective infection control processes were in place. Medicines were managed safely. People were safeguarded from abuse. The provider and registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough staff were deployed to keep people safe. People told us there were enough staff at the service to keep them safe. The provider’s recruitment processes reduced the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

A detailed assessment of people’s support needs was carried out before they started using the service to ensure the correct support was available. Staff received training to ensure they could provide the support people needed. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and an annual appraisal. 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 maintain a healthy diet. People were supported to access external professionals to monitor and promote their health. The premises had been adapted to ensure the comfort, health and wellbeing of the people living there.

Every person we spoke with was very positive about staff at the service and said they received kind and caring support. Relatives also praised the quality of the care people received. Staff were particularly sensitive to times when people needed caring and compassionate support. Staff were patient, caring and kind when supporting people living with a dementia. We saw numerous examples of kind and caring support being delivered throughout the inspection. Staff protected and promoted people’s dignity and sense of self-respect. People were supported to maintain their rights as active citizens and people and their relatives told us staff made them feel like welcome and valued. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a real empathy for and commitment to the people they supported. Policies and procedures were in place to arrange advocacy support where this was needed.

Care records contained evidence of personalised care planning and delivery and were regularly reviewed to ensure they refl

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed and action taken to address them.

Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective infection control policies and practice were in place.

Recruitment procedures were in place to minimise the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were supported through regular training, supervisions and appraisal.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and to access external professionals to maintain and promote their health.

The premises were adapted and designed for the benefit of people living there.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was very caring.

People and their relatives spoke very positively about the care and support they received.

People were supported to maintain their rights as active citizens and people and their relatives told us staff made them feel like welcome and valued

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and promoted their independence.

Procedures were in place to support people to access advocacy services where appropriate.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Care planning and delivery was personalised and regularly reviewed.

People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.

Policies and procedures were in place to respond to complaints.

Procedures were in place to provide end of life care where needed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was well-led.

Staff spoke positively about the culture and values of the service and the leadership of the registered manager.

The service had a number of community links that benefited people.

The registered manager carried out a range of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service.

Feedback was sought from people using the service and their relatives and was acted on.