You are here

Limewood Nursing and Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 October 2018

This inspection took place on 10 September 2018 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection in 2017 we rated the service as requires improvement. At this inspection we found that many improvements had been made, although some improvements were still required to ensure that medicines were consistently safely managed and all people’s risk management plans contained accurate and up to date information.

Limewood Nursing and Residential 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.

Limewood Nursing and Residential Home accommodates up to 59 people over seven ‘clusters’. At the time of the inspection, the service supported 57 people.

Limewood nursing and residential home was specifically designed by a team of clinical specialists, architects and designers at the University of Sterling who have been promoting the importance of the design for people living with dementia. The home has seven ‘clusters’ which are spread across three floors. On the ground floor, there is a high street which was made to replicate the town of Stafford and includes a pub, a picture house, a hairdressing salon and a large area for social activities.

The service had 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.

Some improvements were required to ensure that medicines were consistently managed safely to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed. Risk assessments were in place and most were very detailed and specific to each person, to provide staff with the information they need to manage people’s risks. However, we have a made a recommendation about ensuring consistency for all risk management plans.

People were protected from the risk of harm and staff were trained to recognise the signs of abuse. There were enough suitably skilled staff to meet people’s needs. People were protected from the risk of infection by robust prevention and control measures. Reflective practice and analysis meant lessons were learned when things went wrong.

People’s needs were suitably assessed before the moved to the service and staff were inducted and trained. People had their nutritional needs met and there were systems in place to ensure people received consistent care and support. People were supported to have healthier lifestyles by having timely access to healthcare services and professionals. People had their consent sought in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People received support that was delivered in a caring and compassionate way and people were treated with dignity and respect. People, where possible were consulted about how their care was provided and people’s care was regularly reviewed and adapted in accordance with their needs.

The service delivered care that was person centred. Staff knew people very well and they had access to activities. The provider had plans in place to further improve the provision of activities for people. There was a complaints procedure available to people and their relatives and people were supported at the end of their life to have a dignified and comfortable death.

People, relatives and staff felt the management team were approachable and supportive. There were opportunities for all to be involved in the development of the service and feedback was used to make improveme

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 17 October 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Improvements were required to the way medicines were managed to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.

People’s risks were assessed and managed but consistency needed to be improved to ensure all risk management plans contained the required information.

People were protected from abuse and there were enough suitably skilled staff to meet people’s needs.

People lived in a clean environment and were protected from the risk of infection.

Lessons were learned when things went wrong to make improvements for people who used the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 October 2018

The service was effective.

People’s needs were assessed and care plans were in place to ensure people were supported to meet their needs effectively.

People were supported by suitably trained staff and care was delivered in a consistent way.

People had enough food and drink and were supported to make choices.

People had access to healthcare professionals and had their consent sought.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 October 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that were caring.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

People had their privacy and dignity maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s preferences were considered and people received person-centred care.

People, staff and relatives could make complaints, which were acted on to make improvements.

People were supported to have their end of life wishes met.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 October 2018

People, relatives and staff felt the management team were approachable and supportive. They were given opportunities to provide feedback which was acted upon to make improvements.

The registered manager and provider operated effective systems to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to continuously learn and improve outcomes for people.