You are here

Heeley Bank Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 18 July 2018

This inspection took place on 19 April 2018 and was unannounced. This meant no-one at the service knew we were planning to visit. Heeley Bank was last inspected on 13 December 2016 and was rated as 'good' overall.

Heeley Bank 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. Heeley Bank is a purpose built care home that provides both residential and nursing care for up to 67 people. There are three separate units within the home divided into residential care, general nursing care and nursing care for people living with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 49 people living at Heeley Bank.

The manager had been at Heeley Bank for approximately six months at the time of this inspection. They were in the process of registration with CQC. 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

Medicines were stored safely and securely, however the systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed were not always followed.

Not everyone we spoke with thought there were enough staff available to ensure people’s care and support needs were met in a timely way. Some people also told us there was a high use of agency staff which meant they did not always receive consistent care and support. We saw the manager had plans in place to recruit to the vacant posts. We recommend they consider the deployment of care staff during busy times, such as meal times and take into consideration what people have said regarding agency staff.

We saw the premises were clean and well maintained and the registered provider had systems in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infections. However, we saw these were not always observed by staff. The manager agreed to remind staff of the importance of wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff were provided with relevant training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. However staff did receive appropriate supervision and regular appraisals to enable them to carry out their role effectively.

We saw staff delivering appropriate care to people even though this wasn’t always reflected in the person’s care record. People’s care records needed updating to reflect their current care and support needs. We saw plans were in place to do this.

People, their relatives and staff were not regularly asked for their views on the service or given opportunities to suggest any improvements.

The quality assurance and audits systems in place to monitor and improve service delivery were not always effective.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance. Some of these needed amending to include local contact details.

Staff understood what it meant to protect people from abuse. They told us they were confident any concerns they raised would be taken seriously by the manager.

The registered provider had effective recruitment procedures in place to make sure staff had the required skills and were of suitable character and background.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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 were assisted to maintain their health by being provided with a balanced diet and supported to access a range of health and social care professionals.

Positive and supportive relationships had been developed

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was not always safe.

We found gaps in people’s electronic medicine administration records which meant people may not have been given their medicines as prescribed.

Not everyone thought there were enough staff employed to meet their care and support needs. We saw people waiting for support during busy times.

There were systems in place to recognise and respond to any allegations of abuse. All staff had received training in this area.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was not always effective.

Staff did not receive regular supervision or an annual appraisal in line with the registered provider’s own policy and procedure.

The manager, care staff and registered nurses understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, people’s care plans needed to be updated to accurately reflect any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and outcomes.

People were assisted to maintain their health by being provided with a balanced diet and supported to access a range of health and social care professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us the staff were kind and caring.

We saw people’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People’s care records needed updating to reflect their current care and support needs. We saw plans were in place to do this.

There was a range of activities available to people to join in if they wanted to.

The service had an up to date complaints policy and procedure. People and their relatives told us the manager was approachable.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was not always well-led.

People and staff were not regularly asked for views on the service.

The quality assurance and audits systems in place to monitor and improve service delivery were not always effective.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance.