You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The inspection was carried out on 16 February 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

This service is a care home service without nursing. People in care services 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. The service provided residential accommodation and personal care for up to 28 older people with mild to moderate care needs, some of whom were living with short term member loss or cognitive impairment associated with dementia. There were 18 people living in the service when we inspected. The accommodation was provided over two floors, a lift was available to take people between floors.

The service had previously been registered under another provider. ARMA Care Services Limited took over the service and registered as the provider in February 2017. They took over responsibility for people, the staff and the premises from that date. ARMA Care Services Limited had worked to improve the environment, management of medicines, staff training and introduced new policies.

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 Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. Restrictions imposed on people were only considered after their ability to make individual decisions had been assessed as required under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice. The management team understood when an application should be made. Decisions people made about their care or medical treatment were dealt with lawfully and fully recorded.

Risks assessments continued to be updated and in place for the environment, and for each individual person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. Management systems were in use to minimise the risks from the spread of infection, staff received training about controlling infection and carried personal protective equipment like disposable gloves and apron’s.

Staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the 18 people currently living at Fairways. People’s care was delivered safely and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people who were frail from potential abuse. Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse. The management team had access to, understood the safeguarding policies of the local authority, and when needed followed the safeguarding processes.

The premises and equipment in the service was clean, odour free and maintained to protect people from infection. Safety systems in the service, like fire alarms were serviced by an engineer and tested to maintain people’s safety. Risks within the service had been assessed and maintenance issues were reported and dealt with in a planned and timely manner. The fire procedure was in date and was regularly practiced by staff.

The management team involved people in planning their care by assessing their needs prior to and after they moved into the service. People were asked if they were happy with the care they received on a regular basis.

When new staff started working at the service, they received an induction and followed a recognised pathway of basic training to gain the skills required to meet people’s needs. Training was on going and included supervision and appraisal.

We observed that staff knew people well, staff displayed a kind and caring attitude and people had been asked about who they were and about their life experiences.

We observed staff were welcoming and friend

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was safe.

Staff knew what they should do to identify and raise safeguarding concerns.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed and administered safely.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and monitored to reduce risk. The premises and equipment were maintained.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was effective.

People were provided with care based on assessments and the development of a care plan about them.

People accessed routine and urgent medical attention or referrals to health care specialists when needed.

People were cared for by staff who knew their needs well.

Staff encouraged people to eat and drink enough.

Staff met with their managers to discuss their work performance and each member of staff had attained the skills they required to carry out their role.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood by the provider and staff received training about this.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was caring.

People had forged good relationships with staff so that they were comfortable and felt well treated.

People were treated as individuals and able to make choices about their care.

People had been involved in planning their care and their views were taken into account.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People were provided with care when they needed it and activities were offered to keep people remain active and occupied.

Information about people’s needs was updated often and with their involvement, based on assessments and the development of a care plan about them.

People were encouraged to raise any issues they were unhappy about.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was well led.

The management team continued to implement planned improvements for the service.

People were consistently asked what they thought of the care provided and their feedback had been used to drive the direction of the service.

The provider and registered manager promoted person centred values within the service.

There were clear structures in place to monitor and review the risks that may present themselves as the care was delivered.