You are here

Combe Lea Community Resource Centre Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 May 2018

The inspection of Combe Lea Community Resource Centre took place on 15 and 16 March 2018 and was unannounced. When the service was last inspected in October 2016 four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 were identified.

During this inspection we checked that the provider was meeting the legal requirements of the regulations they had breached. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'All reports' link for Combe Lea Community Resource Centre, on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

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

Combe Lea Community Resource Centre provides care and accommodation for up to 30 people. On the days of the inspection 30 people were living at the home. The home was over two floors, with access to all floors either via stairs or the lift. All bedrooms have en-suite facilities. Gardeners Row was on the first floor and was a unit for people living with dementia. Willow on the second floor was for older people who were physically frail.

At the last inspection the service was rated as Requires Improvement. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made within the service. All of the four previous breaches had now been met.

There was 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.

The provider had failed to take action required following a fire service inspection. The provider had not made improvements needed to the fire systems at the service. The registered manager had notified the provider who had placed it on the corporate risk register. We have notified the fire brigade of this.

People were protected from the risk of infection because staff followed the correct procedures in respect of laundry and avoiding cross infection. However, we noted the laundry baskets were broken and identified this as a potential risk. The provider sent evidence that new baskets had been ordered following the inspection.

The service had received an award after being nominated by a person’s relative. The provider had a video clip of the relative talking about the service on their website. People and their relatives were complimentary about staff. We observed staff interacting with people with warmth and kindness. It was evident staff knew people, their histories and preferences. People’s independence was promoted where possible and staff protected and respected peoples’ dignity.

Care plans were person centred and gave staff clear information about people’s likes and dislikes. We observed staff ensuring everybody received attention and were supported to do things they liked.

Staff were confident about identifying and reporting any suspected abuse and the provider’s procedures were followed if any concerns were identified.

People had clear risk assessments to guide staff how to keep them safe and staff followed this guidance. People had clear assessments in place to ensure their health needs, nutrition and skin condition was monitored. Staff liaised with health professionals to maintain peoples’ wellbeing and to address any new health concerns.

Staff were trained, experienced and supervised. There were enough staff to meet people’s care needs and they carried out their tasks with kindness and discretion. Staff supported people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received their medicines in the way they preferred to take them and medicines were stored and dispo

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 3 May 2018

The service was not always safe.

Improvements to fire safety recommended by the fire service had not been carried out.

Staff were confident about identifying and reporting any suspected abuse.

People had clear risk assessments to guide staff how to keep them safe.

There were enough staff to meet people’s care needs.

Medicines were managed safely.

People were protected from the risk of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were trained, supervised and competent.

People were supported to eat and drink to maintain their health.

Staff worked closely with district nurse and GP services to ensure people received the healthcare they needed.

The service was designed to help people to move around as freely as possible and was decorated in a way that supported people with dementia.

The provider acted within the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 May 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion, and given emotional support when needed.

People’s preferences were respected in how they received their care and spent their time.

Staff ensured people’s independence, privacy and dignity were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that met their needs.

People’s rooms were personalised.

Staff knew people’s histories and spoke with them about their interests.

People were supported to stay at the service as long as possible and end of life care was provided.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 May 2018

The service was well led.

People, their relatives and staff were positive about the registered manager.

The registered manager had a comprehensive system of audits to monitor the quality of the service.

People using the service, their relatives and staff had regular meetings to discuss the running of the service.

Staff had received an award from the provider in recognition of excellence.