Archived: Minshull Court Nursing Home

Updated 21 August 2018

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 is 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.

The unannounced inspection took place on 25 and 26 July 2018. The inspection team consisted on three adult social care inspectors.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information held about the service. This included statutory notifications sent to us about the service. Statutory notifications are information the provider is required to send to the CQC about certain significant events that occur at the service. On this occasion we did not ask the provider to complete a provider information return (PIR) before the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to answer some questions that give information about the service, what they do well and how they plan to improve.

We reviewed information held by other agencies that had an interest in the service such as the local authority and commissioners. The local authority shared positive information about their recent visits to the service.

We used a range of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We spoke to nine staff members, two people using the service, seven representatives of people using the service and three visiting health professionals.

During the two days of inspection, we reviewed a variety of documents such as, policies and procedures relating to the delivery of care and the management of the home and staff. This included six support files of people living at the service, a sample of medicine administration records and three staff personnel files. We also looked at staff supervision records, training and records relating to the management of the home such as health and safety checks and quality assurance systems.

During our inspection we used a method called Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This involved observing staff interactions with people in their care. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who may not be able to tell us their opinions.

We looked around the building and gardens, including the communal areas, bedrooms, kitchen, medicine room and bathrooms. The service is moving to a new purpose-built building in October 2018 so the limitations of the current building were noted but not acted upon as long as they were safe and meeting people’s needs.

Updated 21 August 2018

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 July 2018 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in February 2017 we found that the service was not meeting the required standards. We had found two breaches of the Regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. Following the inspection in February 2017 the provider implemented an action plan. At this inspection we found that the actions had been met and the provider was no longer in breach of the Regulations.

Minshull Court Nursing Home is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 34 people. 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 specialises in caring for people with dementia and advanced dementia leading to behavioural challenges.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is 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. The registered manager was a qualified mental health nurse (RMN).

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were managed to keep them safe from harm. Potential or actual risks were assessed and staff followed the plans put in place.

People’s medicines were managed safely. The registered manager was taking a number of actions to help improve their ordering and supply of medications and to try and control the room temperatures during this weather spell of excessive heat.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and preferences. Staff were recruited using safe recruitment procedures and processes.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The service was safe although the fabric of the building was in need of a lot of refurbishment. The registered provider was developing a purpose-built building for everyone to move into in October 2018.

Staff felt supported and the training they received enabled them to be effective in their roles. Staff received supervisions to ensure a good quality of care was delivered and they received support from the management. Syringe-driver training was not available to staff but the registered manager assured us that this would be sourced to enhance the skills of the qualified nurses in delivering end of life care.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where people lacked the capacity to make certain decisions about their care. People were offered choices and options regarding their daily lives and staff supported people with their choices.

People were supported to access external healthcare professionals and other agencies to ensure their healthcare needs were fully met.

People were supported with their nutritional requirements and preferences. People who lived there and their representatives told us they enjoyed the food.

People were supported by staff who were kind, caring and compassionate. People who lived there had their privacy and dignity respected.

People were provided with an original and varied recreational and leisure activity programme. The activities organiser was innovative and caring. They adapted a variety of activities to meet the needs of the individuals they were supporting.

People and their representatives were involved in the planning and review of their care.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people knew how and to whom to complain if they had concerns.

There were regular staff, resident and relative meetings and the registered manager acted on feedback received.

Staff told us the Registered Manager was supportive and approachable.