Background to this inspection
Updated
11 February 2017
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This unannounced inspection took place on the 8 November 2016. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has experience of caring for someone who uses this type of service.
As part of the inspection we looked at information we already had about the provider. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission about specific events and incidents that occur including serious injuries to people receiving care. We refer to these as notifications. The provider had also completed and returned a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks providers to give key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information from notifications and the information we held about the service to plan the areas we wanted to focus our inspection on. We also contacted the local authority who commission services from the provider for their views of the service.
We visited the home and spoke with six people who lived at the home and met all the other people who lived at the home. Some people living at the home did not have the capacity to speak to us due to their health conditions. We spent time in communal areas observing how care was delivered and we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, five care staff and the chef. We spoke with two relatives. We looked at records including two care plans and medication administration records. We looked at two staff files including a review of the provider’s recruitment process. We sampled records from training plans, incident and accident reports and quality assurance records to see how the provider monitored the quality of the service.
Updated
11 February 2017
We carried out this unannounced inspection on the 8th November 2016. Annie Bright Weston House provides care and support for a maximum of fifteen people some of whom are living with dementia. There were thirteen people living at the home at the time of the inspection.
There is a registered manager at the service who was present throughout our inspection. 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.
People told us they felt safe living at the home. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s support needs. Staff working at the home had knowledge of signs of abuse and how to report concerns.
The provider had identified risks to people. However we found that where risks had been identified appropriate action had not always been taken to monitor the risk for the person.
People were happy with the support they received with their medicines. We saw that the provider had ensured systems were in place to monitor medicine administration.
People were supported to make decisions about their care. Where people were deemed to lack capacity the service had not fully considered the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA)(2005).
Staff had received training to meet people’s individual needs and staff informed us they felt supported in their roles.
The registered manager had ensured people had their healthcare needs met.
People were happy with the provision of meals at the service.
People told us they felt cared for and that they were happy living at the home. Staff knew people well and were enthusiastic about their work. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care in order to state how they wished to be supported.
The registered provider had established systems to support people who wanted to raise concerns or complaints.
People had the opportunity to partake in activities which were based on their interests. These included activities out in the community as well as regular activities within the home.
People and their relatives were happy with how the home was managed and had opportunity to feedback their experiences of living at the home. The registered manager had ensured that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.