Lindisfarne Care Home

Lindisfarne Care Home provides accommodation and nursing and personal care for up to 63 people. At the time of inspection, there were 55 people living at the home.

We found the following examples of good practice.

• All visitors had a temperature check and completed a health declaration before entry. There was ample PPE and handwashing facilities available.

• The home was clean, and staff were regularly cleaning frequently touched surfaces.

• Staff had received guidance on correct PPE use and were following this.

• The provider recognised the contribution staff made throughout the pandemic by increasing pay rates and paying staff when they needed to isolate.

•The manager used ‘zoning’, creating separate areas of the home with dedicated staff and facilities, to minimise the risk of the spread of infections.

• The provider had created a screened indoor visiting area for relatives to visit their loved ones.

Lindisfarne Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Lindisfarne Care Home accommodates 61 people in one adapted building across three separate floors. Some of the people using the service were living with dementia. On the days of our inspection there were 60 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like 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.

We last inspected the service in October 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. The registered manager understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Procedures were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines. However, some as required medicines were not appropriately recorded.

The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service. Infection control audits were carried out monthly and an overall audit conducted annually, and appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

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. However, some mental capacity assessments were blank or were not decision specific. Some of the consent to care and treatment records were not signed by people or their representatives.

People were supported with their dietary needs. Care records contained evidence of people being supported during visits to and from external health care specialists.

People who used the service and family members were complimentary about the standard of care at Lindisfarne Care Home.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

The service supported people to access local advocacy services but no-one was currently using advocacy services at the time of our inspection visit.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and care plans were written in a person-centred way. Person-centred is about ensuring the person is at the centre of any care or support plans and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account.

Care plans were in place that recorded people’s plans and wishes for their end of life care.

Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place. Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager. People who used the service, family members and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service via meetings and surveys.

At our last inspection in June 2013 we found the provider was not protecting people from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not properly maintained and easy for staff to access. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. We found people were now protected because the provider had made improvements in the way records were kept and maintained and these were available for staff to use and guide their practice.

We also found that improvements had been made to ensure that medicines were managed safely.

We also visited the home following information of concern given to CQC. The information indicated the dignity of people living at the home was not protected. We found the manager had taken successful steps to promote the dignity of people living at the home.

Information given to CQC also indicated peoples' dietary needs were not catered for. We found the manager had taken successful steps to make sure anyone who was likely to be at risk from a poor diet, had a plan in place to support them and there was evidence this was carried out and monitored by the manager, nurses and doctors where necessary.

Information given to CQC indicated there was insufficient equipment at the home. We found there was enough equipment to promote the independence and comfort of people who used the service and people were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment.

The provider had taken steps to make sure people at the home were protected from staff who were unsuitable to work with vulnerable people. This was because they had carried out thorough background checks.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made. We found people were now protected against the risks of unsafe use of medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place.

However we found people were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not properly maintained and easy for staff to access.

This was a follow up inspection where we did not collect the views of people at the home or visitors.