You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

Cotman House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 62 older people, some living with dementia.

There were 55 people living in the service, six of these were living with dementia, when we inspected on 23 May 2017. This was an unannounced inspection.

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.

There were arrangements in place to ensure people’s medicines were stored and administered safely. However, the systems in place for the recording of the administration of creams were not robust. The service had identified this and were in the process of addressing it.

We identified that there was potential risk to people in relation to the French windows in some bedrooms. The registered manager assured us that this would be considered and addressed.

There were systems in place to guide staff to minimise the risks of people being abused. People’s care records included risk assessments provided guidance to staff on how risks to people were minimised, these included risk assessments related to people's mobility and pressure ulcers developing.

Staff were available when people needed assistance, care and support. The recruitment of staff was done to make sure that they were suitable to work in the service and people were safe. Staff were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

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 supported this practice. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner. People and/or their representatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People were provided with personalised care and support which was planned to meet their needs. People were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. A complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.

There was an open and empowering culture in the service. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner. However, improvements identified for the recording of creams had been identified by the service but had not yet been implemented.

Improvements were needed in how the service assessed the safety of the French windows in some bedrooms.

There were systems in place to minimise risks of abuse to people.

Staff were available to provide assistance to people when needed. The systems for the safe recruitment of staff were robust.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were understood and referrals were made appropriately.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and their privacy, independence and dignity was promoted and respected.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and these were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s wellbeing and social inclusion was assessed, planned and delivered to ensure their individual needs were being met.

People’s concerns and complaints were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was well-led.

The service provided an open culture. People were asked for their views about the service and their comments were listened to and acted upon.

The service had a quality assurance system and identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.