You are here

Archived: Charlotte James Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 29 March 2017. Charlotte James Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to 28 people. People who used the service had physical health needs and/or were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, 25 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 21 April 2016, we found that improvements were needed in relation to the staffing levels; assessing people’s capacity to make certain decisions; and the effectiveness of the audits to monitor the quality of the service. At this inspection, the required improvements had been made regarding the staffing available and the systems in place to make effective changes in the home.

However, further improvements were required. When people were unable to make specific decisions about their care, the provider had not assessed their capacity and could not demonstrate how decisions were made in people’s best interests. The provider did not always ensure the staff had the specific training they needed to deal with certain circumstances.

People were safe and protected from harm and abuse. They were supported in a safe manner and potential risks were monitored and reviewed. People’s medicines were administered as prescribed and the provider had safe recruitment processes in place.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and good health. They were supported by staff who knew them well and were kind and caring in their manner. Staff had positive relationships with the people who they supported. People were supported in a dignified manner and their privacy and independence was promoted. Visitors were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions as to when they could call.

People were involved in the assessment and planning of their care. They received support that was individual to them and took their views into account. There were opportunities for people to participate in activities they enjoyed. People knew how to raise any concerns and these were responded to.

People were positive about living at the home and felt it was well managed. There was an open culture within the service and staff enjoyed working there.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was safe.

There were enough staff available to meet people�s needs, and the provider had safe recruitment processes in place. People were safe and protected from harm and abuse. People were supported in a safe manner and potential risks were monitored and reviewed. People�s medicines were administered as prescribed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was not consistently effective.

Staff gained people�s consent before support was given. However, when people were unable to make specific decisions about their care, the provider had not assessed their capacity and could not demonstrate how decisions were made in people�s best interests. Staff were usually equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to carry out their roles, but some training had not been given. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and were kind and caring in their manner. Staff had positive relationships with the people who they supported. People were supported in a dignified manner and their privacy and independence was promoted. Visitors were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions as to when they could call.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People were involved in the assessment and planning of their care. They received support that was individual to them and took their views into account. There were opportunities for people to participate in activities they enjoyed. People knew how to raise any concerns and these were responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was well led.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, and actions were taken to drive improvements. People were positive about living at the home and felt it was well managed. There was an open culture within the service and staff enjoyed working there.