You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

This inspection took place on 22 March 2017 and was an unannounced inspection.

The Owls Care Home provides personal care for a maximum of 15 people living with dementia. The accommodation comprises of eleven single bedrooms and two double bedrooms, with some en-suite facilities, over two floors. There are two lounges and a dining area. A passenger lift provides access to the first floor. Rear gardens enable a safe outdoor area for residents in good weather. The home is located in a residential area of Blackpool.

At the time of the inspection visit 14 people lived at the home.

This is The Owls first inspection since the change of provider and the new provider’s registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 2 June 2016.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Although a number of people had limited verbal communication and were unable to converse with us, we were able to speak with other people about their experience of the home and any improvements they would like.

We spoke with five people who lived at the home and a relative. People told us they felt safe and well looked after at The Owls. The registered provider had procedures to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. Staff were familiar with these and had received training in safeguarding adults. They told us they would take prompt action to ensure people’s safety where they became aware of or suspected a safeguarding concern.

People we spoke with said staff were kind and caring and assisted them promptly. They said staff were polite and respectful and supported them to remain as independent as they could be.

Staff knew the care people needed, which showed us they were familiar with people’s care needs, and preferences. People said their health needs were met promptly.

We looked at how the home was staffed. We saw there were enough staff to provide safe care and social and leisure activities.

Staff recognised the importance of social contact, companionship and activities. They engaged in frequent conversations with people and encouraged them to get involved in activities.

Staff managed medicines safely. People told us staff gave them their medicines when they needed them. We saw they were given as prescribed and stored and disposed of correctly.

The environment was maintained, clean and hygienic when we visited.

The new provider had renovated the home externally and refurbished most of the inside of the home. It made the home bright and cheerful.

Recruitment and selection was carried out safely with appropriate checks made before new staff started working in the home. This reduced the risk of employing unsuitable people. Staff had been trained in care and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for.

People told us they were offered a varied choice of meals which were tasty and plentiful. Drinks were available throughout the day and people’s dietary and fluid intake was sufficient for good nutrition.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This enabled staff to work within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Care plans were personalised, involved people and where appropriate their relatives and were regularly reviewed.

People told us they knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint if they were unhappy with something. They said staff were easy to talk to. People told us staff encouraged them to make suggestions and express any ideas or concerns.

There were procedures to monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager sought peo

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and the action to take to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Medicines were administered safely and securely.

Staffing levels were sufficient to support people safely. Recruitment procedures were safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was effective.

Procedures were in place to assess peoples' mental capacity and to assist with decision making where needed.

People were offered a choice of meals. Staff were familiar with each person’s dietary needs and knew their likes and dislikes.

People were supported by staff who were skilled and knowledgeable. This helped them to provide support in the way the person wanted.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was caring.

People we spoke with told us staff were kind and patient. They told us they were comfortable and satisfied with the care they received.

People said staff respected their privacy and dignity. We observed staff interacting with people in a caring and respectful way.

Staff were familiar with and understood people’s history, likes, dislikes, needs and wishes. They took into account people’s individual needs when supporting them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People experienced a level of care and support that promoted their wellbeing and encouraged them to enjoy a good quality of life. There were activities arranged to interest people and encourage interaction.

Care plans were personalised, involved people and where appropriate, their relatives and were regularly reviewed. Staff were welcoming to people’s friends and relatives.

People were aware of how to complain if they needed to. They said any comments or complaints were listened to and action taken promptly.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was well led.

People who lived in the home and their relatives told us staff were approachable and easy to talk with. We saw their views were sought in a variety of ways.

The management team were in the home daily. They carried out a mix of formal and informal checks to monitor the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home. Any issues found were quickly acted upon.

The registered manager had clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Staff understood their role and were committed to providing a good standard of support for people in their care.