You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 November 2018

This inspection took place on 26 September 2018 and was unannounced.

Savile Park 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. The home provides personal care for up to 55 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. Accommodation is provided on three floors with passenger lift access between floors. There are communal areas on each floor, including a lounge and dining room. There were 55 people in the home when we inspected.

The home has 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 our last inspection on 3 October 2017 we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’. We identified two regulatory breaches (Regulations 11 and 17) which related to consent and good governance. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve all the key questions to at least good.

At this inspection we saw there had been improvements made in both areas and the service was compliant with all relevant health and social care regulations. The breaches we identified in October 2017 had been addressed and the rating for all key questions is now good.

Medicine management had improved which ensured people received their medicines when they needed them. People told us they felt safe in the home and praised the support they received from staff who they described as kind and caring. Staff knew how to recognise signs that people may be being abused and the procedures for reporting any concerns they had. Risks to people were well managed and care records guided staff in how to keep people safe. Accidents and incidents were monitored by the provider and lessons learned were shared with staff.

People told us the home was kept clean and we saw this was the case. Staff followed good infection control practices. Safety checks were in place to make sure the premises and equipment was properly maintained and safe.

Robust recruitment processes ensured staff were safe to work in the home. New staff completed a thorough induction process. Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles and this was kept up to date. There were enough staff to meet people's needs.

People received personalised care which was reflected in their care records which were reviewed regularly. Staff were kept informed of any changes in people’s needs through good communication such as detailed handovers at staff shift changes. People’s healthcare needs were met. People enjoyed the food and were provided with a choice of meals and drinks to meet their needs and preferences.

Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity. Staff promoted people’s independence encouraging them to do as much as they could themselves. People had opportunities to take part in a range of different activities in the home and out in the community.

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 and relatives knew how to make a complaint and were confident it would be dealt with appropriately.

People, relatives and staff were unanimous in the praise about the management and leadership of the home. Effective quality audit systems were in place which helped the provider identify and address any issues in a timely way. Our discussions with the district manager and staff demonstrated the provider was

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 November 2018

The service was safe.

Medicines management was safe and effective.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. Staff recruitment checks were thorough.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were assessed and mitigated. Safeguarding incidents were recognised, dealt with and reported appropriately.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 November 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received the induction, training and support they required for their roles.

The service met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were met. People had access to healthcare professionals. The environment was designed to meet people’s needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 November 2018

The service was caring.

People told us the staff were kind and caring and this was confirmed in our observations.

People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 November 2018

The service was responsive.

Personalised care was delivered and this was reflected in the care records.

Activities were provided and also opportunities for people to go out.

People knew how to raise any concerns and a complaints procedure was in place.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 November 2018

The service was well-led.

Effective systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.

People, relatives and staff provided positive feedback about the way the home was run and praised the leadership and management.