You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

Salt Hill Care Centre is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. We regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Salt Hill Care Centre can accommodate up to 53 people (including couples) and provides nursing care, personal care and respite care to older and younger adults living with dementia, physical disabilities, learning disabilities and mental disorders. At the time of our visit there were 49 people using the service.

The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. 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 the time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post.

When we completed our previous inspection on 4 and 5 May 2017, we found concerns relating to end of life care. At the time this area was included under the key question of ‘Caring’. We reviewed and refined our assessment framework and published the new assessment framework in October 2017. Under the new framework this area is included under the key question of ‘Responsive’. Therefore, for this inspection, we have inspected this key question and also the previous key question of ‘Caring’ to make sure all areas are inspected to validate the ratings.

At our previous inspection, the provider was rated ‘Requires improvement’ in all key questions of ‘Safe’, ‘Effective’, ‘Caring’, ‘Responsive’ and ‘Well-led’. We found a number of breaches in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulations) 2014. We asked the provider to send us an action plan to show what improvements would be made, by 23 July 2017. The provider submitted the action plan by the specified date.

We found the service had made the required improvements and are now rated 'Good' in all key questions.

People and relatives gave positive comments about the caring nature of staff. Comments included, “(Staff) very friendly, tolerant, forgiving and always around to help”, “They (staff) are always quite cheerful.”

People told us staff made sure those close to them felt like they mattered. Staff had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs. Staff ensured people’s privacy and dignity was respected and they were supported to be independent. Information about people was kept secure.

People said they felt safe from abuse. Comments included, “I feel quite safe” and “It’s as safe as houses. I would speak to (name of staff) if I felt unsafe.”

People were protected from harassment, discrimination and breaches of dignity and respect. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Safe recruitment practices were in place and there were sufficient staff to care for people. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and medicines were administered safely.

People were cared for by staff who were appropriately inducted and trained. People’s nutritional needs were met. They were supported to live healthier lives and had access to healthcare services.

We have made a recommendation in relation to the provision of snacks. This was because people and relatives told us there was not a wide variety of snacks on offer. This was confirmed by our observations.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service showed the service acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

End of life wishes and preferences were captured with people and their relative’s involvement. The service was responsive to peoples’ care needs and social well-being. All compl

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was safe.

People said they felt safe and staff knew how to keep them safe.

People�s personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise identified risks.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff, robust recruitment were in place and medicines were administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was effective.

There were issues in relation to snacks, we have made a recommendation about this.

People were cared for by staff who were appropriately inducted and trained.

The service acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People were supported to live healthier lives with access to healthcare services.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives made positive comments about the caring nature of staff.

People told us staff made sure those close to them felt like they mattered.

Staff ensured people�s privacy and dignity was respected and they were supported to be independent.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Reviews of care were not carried out consistently and documented. We have made a recommendation about this.

End of life wishes and preferences were captured with people and their relative�s involvement.

The service was responsive to peoples� care needs and social well-being.

All complaints received were responded to in line with the service�s complaints policy and procedure.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was well-led.

People, relatives and staff were positive about the service and how it was managed.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service delivered.

The service sought feedback from people and their relatives but acknowledged further work was still required.