Archived: St Michael's Rest Home

The home provides support and care for up to 30 people living with dementia. There were 27 people living in the home during the inspection. Some people had complex needs and required support with all aspects of their lives, including moving around the home safely due to their physical frailty or medical conditions. Other people needed prompting or some support with personal care and eating.

A registered manager was responsible for the day to day management of the home. 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.

This inspection took place on the 4 and 16 February 2016 and was unannounced.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The management and staff had attended training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, but they were not up to date with current guidance to ensure people were protected. Additional training was being arranged and advice was being sought from healthcare professionals.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines. Staff followed relevant policies, they gave out medicines safely and signed the administration records after they had been taken. However, additional advice was needed to ensure medicines given without a person’s consent followed current guidelines.

People were assessed before they moved into the home to ensure staff could meet their needs, and care plans, including risk assessments to ensure their safety, were developed from this information. The registered manager reviewed these to ensure people and their relatives were involved in decisions about the support and care provided, and that they agreed with the information recorded in their care plans.

Systems were in place to ensure people were protected and support was provided safely. This included safeguarding training, staff had a good understanding of abuse and how to raise concerns if they had any.

Relatives and staff said the management were very approachable, and were involved in decisions about how the service developed with ongoing discussion on a day by day basis and during meetings. In addition feedback was sought from people, their relatives, healthcare professionals and other visitors to the home, through satisfaction questionnaires.

People told us the food was very good. Staff asked people what they wanted to eat, choices were available for each meal, and people enjoyed the food provided. People decided what they wanted to do, some joined in activities, while others chose to sit quietly in their room or communal areas.

People had access to health professionals as and when they required it. The visits were recorded in the care plans with details of any changes to support provided as guidance for staff to follow when planning care.

A complaints procedure was in place. This was displayed on the notice board near the entrance to the building, and given to people, and relatives, when they moved into the home. Relatives said they were aware of the procedures and who to complain to, but had not needed to use them.

People had their individual needs and wishes assessed and recorded. They were supported to give consent to the care and support they received wherever possible.

Each person living in the home had a detailed plan of care in place that was regularly reviewed and updated to reflect their individual wishes and changing needs.

There were processes in place to protect people from risk of abuse. Staff had received relevant training and were aware of their responsibilities.

People were being supported by a staff team that were sufficient in numbers and had the necessary skills and training to support people safely.

The provider had processes in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service being provided.

Comments from four family members that spoke with us included. 'I am quite satisfied with the care here. My wife always looks nice and her hair is attended to as this is important to her. I come to visit every other day and they give me lunch so that we can spend time together."

People were satisfied with the care and support they received. Care plans had been written in a way that ensured people's safety and contained care information.

People living at the home were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had ensured staff were trained in safeguarding. There were procedures in place to help people raise concerns and help prevent abuse from happening.

People spoke positively about the staff. We found that the management had systems and processes in place to help reduce the risk of harm to people and staff. The manager had thought of different ways of finding out what people felt about the service.