The Care Quality Commission

Archived: Regency Manor

16 - 17 Blair Avenue, Parkstone, Poole, Dorset, BH14 0DA (01202) 715760

Provided and run by:
Mariposa Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

30, 31 July 2013

During a routine inspection

On the two days of the inspection there were 30 people living at Regency Manor. We spoke with two people and observed other people living at the home. This was because they had dementia and were not able to tell us about their experiences of living at Regency Manor.

During the inspection we spoke with the regional director, acting manager and 13 staff, three visiting health professionals and one relative.

We found that nursing and care staff employed by Regency Manor knew people well, we saw and they were able to tell us how they provided care and treatment for individuals. However, people did not experience care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. This was because their needs were not assessed and planned for. This meant that care plans did not accurately reflect people's needs and they were at risk of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care that did protect their welfare and safety.

People were not protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and hydration. This was because nutritional assessments had not been fully completed and there were no plans in place to address identified risks. Staff did not have sufficient skills and knowledge in nutrition to ensure that people were fully protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and hydration.

12, 19 March 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited Regency Manor unannounced on 12 and 19 March 2013. This was to follow up on the warning notice issued following the inspection on 23 January 2013 for serious shortfalls in the records kept about the care and treatment that people received.

On the day of the inspection there were 39 people living at the home.

We spoke with the newly appointed care consultant who was responsible for the management of the home. We also spoke with three staff and observed the care and support provided to people on four of the five living units.

We saw that staff had good relationships with people. We saw that they spoke with people kindly and supported people in relaxed and caring manner.

We found that the warning notice was not met and people living at Regency Manor were not protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care. This was because relevant records that the home kept about them were not accurate and up to date.

18 July 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We inspected Regency Manor following receiving information of concern about staffing levels at the home. On the day of the inspection there were 30 people living at the home. We spoke with three people and observed other people living at the home. This was because they had dementia and were not able to tell us about their experiences of living at Regency Manor.

During the inspection we spoke with the acting manager and nine staff.

We found that people did not experience care, treatment and support that met their needs. This was because they did not receive the care and medical treatment that they needed and they did not receive sufficient fluids to keep them hydrated.

There were not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs on Harbour suite.

Following the inspection we made safeguarding referrals to the local authority for 12 of the 30 people living at the home. This was because we were concerned with the safety and well being of people living at the home.

14, 15 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection was to follow up on the shortfalls identified during our inspections in January and March 2013 in the way people's care was assessed, monitored and delivered, the safe management of medicines and the records kept about people.

Following our inspection in March 2013 the provider had provided the Care Quality Commission (CQC) with a weekly action plan. This plan detailed the progress in meeting the shortfalls identified at the previous inspections.

On the day of the inspection there were 32 people living at the home. The majority of people living at the home had dementia. We saw that people were relaxed with staff and responded positively when staff spoke and spent time with them.

We spoke with seven people, thirteen staff, two visitors and the acting manager. One person said, 'Staff are smashing' and a visitor said, 'I have no concerns XXX appears well looked after'.

We found that overall people's care and treatment was assessed, monitored and delivered. The majority of people's needs were planned for and where there were minor shortfalls in the planning, we found that people had been provided with the care they needed.

Overall medicines management was safe. There were audit systems in place to identify any shortfalls and these were acted on.

The warning notice issued in January 2013 for the shortfalls in records was not fully met. This was because some care records that the home kept about people were not fully completed or accurate.

23 January 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We inspected Regency Manor following safeguarding concerns raised about people living at the home. Two local authority safeguarding investigators visited to the home on the same day. On the day of the inspection there were 43 people living at the home.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because they had complex needs which meant that the majority of people were unable to tell us about their experiences.

During the observations we saw that people were relaxed with staff and responded positively when staff spoke and spent time with them. There were different activities going on throughout the day to keep people in the dementia care units occupied.

We spoke with six people, seven staff, the acting manager and the organisation's regional manager. Comments from people about living at the home included; 'The staff are nice, we have laughs', 'I hardly get any company here' and 'Nice care workers they come and help'.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs but the impact of agency and new staff meant that staff spent some extra time explaining people's needs.

We found shortfalls in the way people's care was assessed, monitored and delivered and in medicines management. There were serious shortfalls in the records kept about people living at the home. They were not accurately completed, had omissions and placed people at risk of unsafe care.

1 March 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the home on 1 March 2012. This was to follow up on enforcement action we had taken and other concerns we found when we inspected the home on 5 January 2012.

At the time of the inspection there were 31 people living at the home. We did not specifically speak with people about their experiences during the visit. We looked at records in communal areas of two living units so we were able to observe the way that people were supported. We spoke with the manager, deputy manager and four staff.

Whilst in the communal areas we observed that people and staff had good relationships. Staff chatted with people and they participated in activities together.

The shortfalls and concerns identified at the last inspection have now been met.

5 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the home on 5 January 2012. This was to follow up on concerns we found when we inspected the home on 6 September 2011.

At the time of the inspection there were 30 people living at the home. Some people who live at the home were not able to communicate with us as they have dementia or were very physically frail. We spoke with a visiting relative, staff and observed the interactions between staff and people.

We have used a formal way to observe people during this visit to help us understand their experiences. This involved our observing five different people for 50 minutes, and recording their experiences at five minute intervals. We observed their mood, how they engaged in activities, and interacted with staff members, other people, and the environment.

We observed that people and staff had good relationships. Staff chatted with people and they participated in activities together. They involved people with the lunchtime and clearing away. Staff gently redirected people who liked to walk around back to their food and drinks. They supported people to eat and drink in a sensitive way and at their pace.

When people were unsettled staff offered gentle reassurance and redirection to different activities. When people did not accept reassurance from a member staff, a different member of staff tried and they were successful.

People were offered choices of drinks during our visit. However, staff were limited as to the choices they were able to offer people during the lunchtime observation.

Overall, we observed improvements on how the staff interacted and worked with people living at Regency Manor.

We found that there were ongoing shortfalls in the completion of and monitoring of assessments, care and records for people. Regency Manor was not able to demonstrate that they were providing the care and treatment that people need and that they were effectively reviewing the quality of the service.

6 September 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

As the majority of people who live at the home were not able to communicate with us as they have dementia, we observed the interactions between staff and people.

We have used a formal way to observe people during this visit to help us understand their experiences. This involved our observing three people for one hour in the Dolphin living unit, and recording their experiences at five minute intervals. We observed their mood state, how they engaged in activities, and interacted with staff members, other people, and the environment. We also observed people and staff in the Lilliput living unit.

Staff involved people in discussions and leisure activities. People were engaged with the activities and talked with other people at the home. We saw that individuals had things to occupy them. One person who likes to take things apart has a box of things to sort and dismantle.

At busier times staff became more task focused and did not encourage involvement from people. Staff did not involve people in activities of daily living such as setting the table for lunch.

People actively sought the company of staff. In the main, staff gently redirected and supported people when they became unsettled. There were some occasions when staff did not reassure one person who was anxious.

We observed lunchtime and people told us that they enjoyed the food. Staff supported people to eat sensitively, discretely and at their pace.

9 June 2011

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with three people who were able to communicate with us. As some people who live at the home have dementia they were not able to communicate with us, we spoke with visiting professionals and observed the interactions between staff and people in the communal areas of the living units.

People living in the home and professionals spoke positively about the service that they received. They commented on the kindness of the staff employed at the home. Comments included 'everything is perfect'the staff are lovely and all are caring', 'I've been in hospital, it feels good to be back here'staff are easy to get on with' and 'carers are ok, about the same as everywhere'.

People and staff were observed to enjoy each others company and laughed with each other. Staff gently redirected and supported people with dementia when they became unsettled.

People told us that they could live their lives as they choose. They told us that they could get up and go to bed whenever they chose to. They said that they were involved with planning their care and support when they first moved in to the home.

They said that staff supported them with activities in the home and the local community. They told us that staff drive them to any appointments and external activities in the car provided by the home

People told us and we observed that they are given choices of meals and drinks. People told us that there was plenty of food and drink available and that it was good quality.

People told us that they knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns. They told us that their views are listened to and action taken when necessary.