We carried out a review of the data available to us about Falcon House Residential Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Falcon House Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The registered manager was following the government's guidance on whole home testing for people and staff. This included using rapid testing and weekly testing for staff.
People were supported to isolate when required and the environment had been set up to encourage social distancing. The environment was easy to keep clean to minimise the risk of infection.
People were being supported to maintain contact with their families by video and telephone calls and when safe to do so visiting procedures were in place for people to see their relatives.
• People were safe living in the service. Risks had been identified and people told us they felt safe and well looked after.
• Staff were kind and caring and supported people to be as independent as possible.
• People had access to healthcare professionals when required.
• Staff knew how to care for people. Staff used their skills and the resources and equipment provided so the risk of accidental harm or infections was reduced. People were supported to have the medicines they needed to remain well and as prescribed. Some people chose to manage their medicines independently.
• The registered manager had clear oversight of the service and worked alongside staff. Staff were respectful of the registered manager and told us they were approachable and supportive.
• We found the service continued to meet the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; More information is available in the full report
Rating at last inspection:
Good (The date of the last report published was 6 September 2016)
About the service:
Falcon House is a residential care home, providing personal care and accommodation for people aged 65 and older. At the time of our inspection 18 people were living in the service.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor this service in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Good.
The inspection took place on 12 July 2016 and was unannounced.
Falcon House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 24 older people. Care is provided on two floors. At the time of our visit there were 21 people living in the service.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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 were safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. There were appropriate arrangements in place for medication to be stored and administered safely, and there were sufficient numbers of care staff with the correct skills and knowledge to safely meet people’s needs.
The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and are required to report on what we find. The MCA sets out what must be done to make sure the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected. The DoLS are a code of practice to supplement the main MCA code of practice. Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act.
People’s care plans were individual and contained information about people’s needs, likes and dislikes and their ability to make decisions.
People had access to healthcare professionals. A choice of food and drink was available that reflected their nutritional needs, and took into account their personal lifestyle preferences or health care needs.
Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.
People were encouraged to follow their interests and hobbies. They were supported to keep in contact with their family and friends.
There was a strong management team who encouraged an open culture and who led by example. Staff morale was high and they felt that their views were valued.
The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided, and to drive improvements where this was required.
We found during our inspection on 19 September 2013 that people's care records had not been updated to reflect changes to their care needs. When we inspected Falcon House on 23 December 2013 we found that the people's care records were accurate and fit for purpose.
We also spoke with a health professional who visited the home every week. They told us, "The residents seem well cared for. My team really like the home."
People told us that they were provided with plenty of food that they liked. One person said, "We don't go hungry that's for sure."
The premises looked clean and smelled fresh. The bedrooms we looked in were clean and dust free. The en-suite facilities were spotlessly clean, as were the communal bath and shower rooms.
We found that the procedures in place for checking the suitability of the new employees were not robust. One new employee had started work eight weeks prior to a satisfactory criminal records check being received. We also saw that the process for obtaining references from previous employers was unsatisfactory.
We saw that the home had a policy on complaints, details of which were in the Service User Handbook held in each person's room.
We saw that care records were not up to date and were inaccurate. People's care plans and risk assessments had not been reviewed for months.
People told us that they were involved in their care planning and confirmed that they were present when their needs were reviewed, demonstrating that they were able to influence how they were supported. People also told us that staff were knowledgeable, well trained and 'Know how to do their job.'
People said they felt safe at this home . We found that staff were up to date with training that was relevant to their roles. The staff were supported by a regular supervision process.
We found that the provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service that included surveys, staff meetings, meetings for and with people who lived at the home and regular audits.