Archived: Nightingale Care Home

We also spoke with the manager and a staff member and reviewed records relating to the recruitment checks undertaken for new staff members.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Files for new staff members showed that appropriate references were requested from their previous employers and obtained prior to staff starting work for the service. This meant that their working ability and performance was known prior to them working with people who used the service.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with three people using the service, two staff supporting them and review of eight care records of people who used the service.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and a member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies.

However we observed that the manager had not followed their organisations selection and recruitment policy as they had failed to obtain two references for each member of staff.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew the people well. One person told us. "The staff are very kind. They organised a birthday party for me with my relatives and friends.' Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our observations confirmed this.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the home. People told us that they were involved in preparing their care plans. We saw that people's preferences, interests and religious and cultural needs had been recorded in their care plans.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

People we spoke with told us that if they were unhappy then they would speak to the manager.

Is the service well-led?

We looked at examples of the quality monitoring report that was produced, and noted that comprehensive action plans were in place with expected timescales for completion. The regional manager reviewed the action plans with the manager at each visit.

We saw that the provider had held meetings for people who use the service and their relatives but, the attendance had been low. The manager informed us that they are currently reviewing how they can obtain feedback from people who use the service and their relatives.

Each person had an individual care record including assessments of individual need and how these should be met by staff in the form of individual care plans to help to support health and personal care needs. This meant that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Maintenance records and schedules were in place and checklists were used to record equipment checks and any remedial action. This showed us that people who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

Those care records seen included a record of the care provided three times a day and identified the actions taken when concerns about care needs were identified by staff. This meant that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We reviewed in detail the care records of four people with different needs who were receiving care and support in this service. These records were accurate and fit for purpose. This showed us that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.