We carried out a review of the data available to us about Rugby Care Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Rugby Care Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice
¿ The service was booking visitors in at a time that suited people and was spaced out to avoid potential infection transmission. Staff were assigned specifically to support visiting and areas where visitors had been in the building were cleaned in between visits.
¿ The home had several communal areas which they converted into lounge and activity spaces for small groups of people to use. This meant people could remain in small bubbles to socialise, eat and watch television to avoid them being socially isolated.
¿ The home had a large community garden. This was utilised for people to sit outside and still feel they were part of a community whilst safely following social distancing guidelines.
¿ The service appointed a dedicated lead to deal with all COVID-19 related issues and to oversee all testing of staff, people and visitors.
Rugby Care Centre is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 29 adults living with dementia. The care home is a two-storey building with some en-suite bedrooms and communal facilities. At the time of our inspection visit there were 25 people receiving care.
People’s experience of using this service
The provider and registered manager were open and honest and worked in partnership with outside agencies. They were committed to making improvements to the service. Checks took place to ensure good standards of care were maintained. However, some environmental risks had not been identified.
People felt safe using the service. Staff managed the risks to people’s health, safety and well-being and understood how to recognise and report abuse. Staff recruitment processes included background checks to review their suitability to work with vulnerable adults.
People received support from staff when needed. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink to maintain their well-being. They were supported with their medicines and to obtain advice from healthcare professionals when required.
Staff felt supported and valued by senior staff. Staff had training to meet people’s needs and the provider and registered manager shared guidance with staff about how to support people effectively.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were treated with dignity and their independence was promoted wherever possible. People were encouraged to take part in activities which interested them and which improved their wellbeing.
People and their relatives were involved in planning care in their best interests. People and their families understood how to complain if they wanted to.
Rating at last inspection and update
The last inspection was a comprehensive inspection. The service was rated Good in all areas (report published 06 September 2017). We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
At the last inspection in September 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection visit. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.
There were enough staff available to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of people. Staff were given induction and training so they had the skills required to meet the needs of people living at the home. People were protected against the risk of abuse as the provider took appropriate steps to recruit staff of good character, and staff knew how to protect people from harm.
The manager and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Decisions were made in people’s ‘best interests’ where they could not make decisions for themselves.
Care staff treated people with respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made their own choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people in their community.
People were provided with food and drink that met their health needs and their preferences. People were supported to access healthcare professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.
People were offered opportunities to take part in interests and hobbies that met their individual needs.
People knew how to give feedback to the management team, or make a complaint if they needed to. Quality assurance procedures identified where the service needed to make improvements and where issues had been identified, the manager and provider took action to continuously improve the service.
We inspected this service on 10 and 14 September 2015. The inspection was unannounced.
The provider had taken over the ownership of the home in April 2015. They had retained the registered manager and staff who were employed by the previous provider at that time.
The registered manager had been in post for a continuous period of ten years, as they had been employed by two previous providers. 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.
The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 29 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. Twelve people were living at the home on the day of our inspection.
There were policies and procedures in place to minimise risks to people’s safety. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm and were encouraged and supported to raise any concerns. The registered manager assessed risks to people’s health and welfare and wrote care plans that minimised the identified risks.
There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s physical and social needs. The registered manager checked staff’s suitability to deliver personal care during the recruitment process. The premises and equipment were regularly checked to ensure risks to people’s safety were minimised. People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.
Staff understood people’s needs and abilities because they read the care plans and shadowed experienced staff until they knew people well. Staff received training and support that ensured people’s needs were met effectively. Staff were encouraged to reflect on their practice and to develop their skills and knowledge, which improved people’s experience of care.
The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager had obtained guidance from local and national agencies to make sure the care they provided did not deprive people of their liberty. No one was subject to a DoLS at the time of our inspection.
Risks to people’s nutrition were minimised because people were offered meals that were suitable for their individual dietary needs and met their preferences. People were supported to eat and drink according to their needs and staff understood the importance of helping people to maintain a balanced diet.
Staff were attentive to people’s moods and behaviour and understood when to implement different strategies to minimise people’s anxiety. Staff ensured people obtained advice and support from other health professionals to maintain and improve their health or when their needs changed.
People and their relatives were involved in planning and agreeing how they were cared for and supported. Care was planned to meet people’s individual needs, abilities and preferences and care plans were regularly reviewed.
The provider’s quality monitoring system included regular checks of people’s care and health, medicines management, meals and suitability and management of the premises. Accidents, incidents, falls and complaints were investigated and actions taken to minimise the risks of a re-occurrence.
People who lived at the home, their relatives and staff were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service. The new provider had consulted with people, their relatives, staff and external specialists before making improvements to the garden, the décor and to the meals. The provider took account of people’s opinions to make sure planned improvements improved people’s actual experience of the service