Archived: Pembroke Rest Home

Pembroke Rest Home is a care home which provides personal care. Care is mainly provided to people who have acquired brain injuries or mental health support needs. It is registered to support 14 people.

At the last inspection, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The service had 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Systems were in place to protect people from avoidable harm or risk. Staff received safeguarding training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities for ensuring people’s safety. Risks to people, staff and visitors were assessed and regularly reviewed. The service took action to minimise risks where appropriate in order to keep people safe from harm.

Robust recruitment processes were in place to ensure staff members were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staffing levels were based on the dependency levels of people living at the home and were reviewed on a regular basis. Our observations during the inspection and from feedback we received were that staffing levels continued to be appropriate to safely meet people’s needs.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of people’s medicines. People were encouraged to maintain their independence, for example through retaining responsibility for managing their own medicines or self-care. Peoples medicines were stored in peoples bedrooms

Staff were supported through the provision of role specific training, formal supervision and annual appraisals. Staff confirmed they felt well supported in their roles and spoke positively about the recently appointed registered manager and their leadership and management of the home.

The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment was assessed and where appropriate, “best interest” decisions were made on people’s behalf. These involved relevant healthcare professionals as well as people’s friends and family members as appropriate.

People were very complimentary about the kind and caring nature of the staff team. Staff had developed strong, caring relationships with the people they supported and were very knowledgeable about their individual needs, likes and dislikes.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them joining the service. Detailed, person-centred care plans were produced which guided staff on how to care for people. These included details of any preferences people may have. People and their representatives were actively involved in their care planning and were also encouraged to voice their opinions about the service in general.

People’s needs were reviewed on an on-going basis and action taken to obtain the input of external professionals where appropriate. Systems were in place to ensure people had sufficient to eat and drink and to access other healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health.

A range of systems were in place to monitor and review the quality and effectiveness of the service. Action was taken to address areas for improvement identified. Complaints were taken seriously and records maintained of the action taken by the service in response to any form of dissatisfaction. The service was about to undertake major improvements to the environment and furnishings as part of a planned refurbishment.

People had their needs assessed and this information was used to develop care plans. Some people who used the service told us they had seen their care plan and were involved in reviewing it.

People had their medication administered by senior care staff who had completed specific training and had been assessed as competent.

We found the provider had robust recruitment checks in place. People who used the service said they were happy with their care staff. One person commented, 'I like the staff, the staff are lovely people', and, another person commented, 'If you want to talk to someone there is always someone to talk to.'

People told us they had no complaints about the care they received. One person said, 'If I had concerns I would go to the staff. The staff would help if they can', and, 'I would go to the boss if I had concerns.' Another person said, 'This place is fine.'

During our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service, and two visiting relatives. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care which was provided. People told us they were encouraged to be independent, one person said, "The staff have worked with me to help me to do more things for myself. We bake food together in the kitchen, once I'm confident with it I'll be able to do it myself." One relative told us, "It's a lovely place. I'm always made to feel welcome. They let me know any updates straight away. I'm very happy." During our visit we saw people were treated with consideration and respect.

We reviewed three care records and saw that people's preferences and care needs had been well documented. We spoke with four members of staff. Staff were knowledgeable about the people's care needs and what they should do to support them.

Staff training was kept up to date so that staff could care for people safely and to an appropriate standard.

We found that the provider had made suitable arrangements to protect vulnerable people from the risk of abuse.

There was an effective system in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.