Midhurst Road Residential Home

Updated 26 October 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 checked 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.

The inspection took place on 19 September 2017 and was unannounced which meant no one at the service knew that we would be visiting. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the Provider Information Return (PIR) which the registered provider completed before the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed notifications of any accidents and other incidents we had received. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the registered provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.

We contacted Sheffield local authority and Healthwatch (Sheffield). Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. All of the comments and feedback received were reviewed and used to assist and inform our inspection.

During the visit we spoke with 11 people who used the service and three of their relatives to obtain their views of the home.

We spoke with two health professionals, a vicar and a volunteer who were visiting the home.

We spoke with nine staff including the registered manager, the deputy manager, a team leader, three care staff, an activities worker, the cook and the administrator.

We looked around different areas of the service; the communal areas, bathrooms, toilets and with their permission, some people’s rooms.

We also looked at three care plans, three staff files and records associated with the running and monitoring of the service.

Updated 26 October 2017

Midhurst Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 42 older people. The home is situated in the Foxhill area of Sheffield, close to local amenities and transport links. Accommodation is based over two floors, accessed by a passenger lift. All of the bedrooms are single and have en-suite toilets and showers. Communal lounges and dining rooms are provided. The home has extensive and accessible well maintained gardens and a car park.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our last inspection at Midhurst Road took place 26 May 2015. The service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time and overall we rated the service Good.

This inspection took place on 19 September 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the people who lived at Midhurst Road and the staff who worked there did not know we were coming. On the day of our inspection there were 41 people living at Midhurst Road.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Midhurst Road and spoke very positively about the staff.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if an allegation was made or they suspected abuse.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.

Staff recruitment procedures ensured people’s safety was promoted.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely and effectively.

Staff underwent an induction and shadowed experienced staff prior to commencing work. Staff had regular updates to their training and were provided with relevant supervision and appraisal so they had the skills and support they needed to undertake their role.

The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The registered provider’s policies and systems supported this practice.

People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health.

A varied diet was provided to people which took into account dietary needs and preferences so their health was promoted and choices could be respected. People’s fluid and diet intake was monitored by staff where a risk of dehydration or malnutrition had been identified.

We found the home was clean and well maintained. Bedrooms had been personalised and communal areas were comfortably furnished.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was protected. All the people, relatives and visiting health professionals we spoke with made positive comments about the care provided by staff.

We found people’s care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and in response to any change in needs.

We saw people participated in a range of daily activities both in and outside of the home which were meaningful and promoted independence.

People said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.

Staff told us they felt they had a very good team. Staff, people and relatives said the registered manager was approachable and communication was good within the service.