You are here

Archived: Nayland House Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 December 2018

Nayland House is owned by Larchwood Care Homes (South) Limited. It provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to 54 people, at the time of our inspection there were 49 people living in the service. The service is supporting a range of people's needs, including older people and people living with dementia. Nursing care is not provided at Nayland House. 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.

At our last inspection, in November 2016 we rated the service Requires improvement in all key questions apart from Caring, which we rated as Good. Which meant the overall rating for this service was requires improvement. At this comprehensive inspection, which we carried out on 27 September 2018 we found evidence that the service had made the necessary improvements for us to rate the service as Good in all key questions.

During that last inspection we found evidence that improvements were needed to ensure staff were consistently monitoring for any potential risks during care delivery that could impact on people's welfare. Also, although staff received training they did not always put it into practice. We found shortfalls in staff's knowledge of supporting people living with dementia.

We also believed that improvements were needed to ensure all people had access to stimulating occupation or activities, which met their individual needs. During our previous inspection we found that systems were in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service that people received. However, implemented changes and improvements were not always being effectively embedded in practice to drive continuous improvements.

During this inspection people living in this service told us that they felt safe and very well cared for. There were systems in place which provided guidance for care staff on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. Risk assessments were in place to identify how the risks to people were minimised. There were sufficient numbers of trained and well supported staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support.

Both the registered manager and the staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager knew how to make a referral if required. Meaning that people living in the home were still being supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People’s needs were assessed and the service continued to support people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and to have access to healthcare services.

We saw many examples of caring interactions between the staff and people living in the service. People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Staff continued to protect people’s privacy and dignity.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints. Staff took steps to investigate complaints and to make any changes needed. People were supported at the end of their lives to have a comfortable, dignified and pain free death.

The registered manager told us that they were well supported by the organisation. The peop

Inspection areas



Updated 21 December 2018

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to minimise risks to people and to keep them safe.

There were enough staff to meet people�s needs. Recruitment checks were completed to make sure people were safe.

People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner.



Updated 21 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to meet people�s needs effectively.

The service was up to date with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People�s nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support.



Updated 21 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and their privacy, independence and dignity was promoted and respected.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and these were respected.



Updated 21 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People were provided with personalised care to meet their assessed needs and preferences.

People�s concerns and complaints were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.



Updated 21 December 2018

The service was well-led.

The service provided an open culture. People were asked for their views about the service and their comments were listened to and acted upon.

The service had a quality assurance system and identified shortfalls were addressed promptly.