The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Rugby Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

53 Clifton Road, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 3QE (01788) 542353

Provided and run by:
Four Seasons (Evedale) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

4 November 2014

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service on 4 November 2014. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in June 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 29 people who may have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection 15 people lived at the home. The service had a registered manager. 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.

We found the provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to minimise risks to people’s safety. The manager assessed risks to people’s health and welfare and wrote care plans that minimised the identified risks. Staff understood people’s needs and abilities because they read the care plans and worked alongside experienced staff.

Staffing levels were decided according to people’s needs and abilities. This ensured there were enough staff to care for and support people with their physical and social needs. The manager made all the appropriate checks on staff’s suitability to deliver personal care during the recruitment process.

The manager checked that the premises were well maintained and equipment was regularly serviced to minimise risks to people’s safety.

The medicines administration policy and procedures were known to and understood by staff. Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely because staff acted in accordance with the policy and procedures.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was under a DoLS at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their relation’s best interests.

All the people we spoke with told us they were happy at the home. They told us the staff were kind and helped them to maintain their interests and involvement in the local community. We saw staff understood people who were not able to communicate verbally and supported them with kindness and compassion.

People’s care was planned to meet their individual needs, abilities and preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed and staff asked other health professionals for advice and support when people’s health needs changed.

The provider’s quality monitoring system included regular checks of people’s care plans, medicines administration and the quality of care that people received. Accidents, incidents and falls were investigated and actions taken to minimise the risks of a re-occurrence.

People who lived at the home and relatives had confidence in the manager and the staff. They told us the quality of care was good and their suggestions, comments and complaints were listened to and responded to appropriately.

5 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who lived at the home and a relative. They all told us they were happy with their care and support. People said, “My keyworker is like a daughter to me” and “I can have a good laugh and joke with them” and “I am very happy here, I have no complaints”. A relative told us, “I can’t fault the care.”

In the three care plans we looked at, we saw that people or their relatives had signed their consent to their care and support. People told us they had been asked about their likes, dislikes and preferences.

When we visited the home in February, we were concerned that people’s changing nutritional needs were not always included when their care plans were reviewed. During this visit we found the manager had taken action which ensured people’s nutritional risks were consistently assessed and reviewed.

During our visit in February we were concerned that there were not enough staff to meet the needs of all the people who lived at the home. During this visit we found that the manager had re-assessed everyone’s needs. The manager had recruited additional staff to make sure that there were enough staff to support everyone effectively.

The manager’s quality assurance system included asking people for their views about the quality of the service. People we spoke with told us the manager always listened to them and they could talk to the manager at any time. People said they felt happy about raising any concerns with staff or the manager.

20 February 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We made an unannounced inspection on 20 February 2013, because we received information that led us to believe that there may be concerns about this service.

On the day of our inspection we met with a senior manager, who was covering for the manager’s annual leave, and the area manager. Both managers were aware of the specific concerns that had been raised about the service. They had already taken actions and developed plans to minimise risk and we saw the quality monitoring process.

We found that people lived in a clean environment, were treated with respect and kept safe from abuse.

People were weighed regularly, but weight loss was not always considered when their nutritional needs were reviewed, which meant that people were at risk of poor nutrition.

Staff knew and understood people very well, but changes in their needs and dependencies were not clearly recorded, which meant the staffing levels were not increased to support people’s changing needs. On the day of our visit there were not enough staff to respond to people’s needs promptly and in accordance with their preferences.

The provider's action plans included re-assessment of some people’s needs by the local authority, to make sure that this home was the most appropriate place for them to live, and a complete review of everyone’s care plan.

We will make another unannounced visit to the home to check that the local action plans and provider’s quality assurance system are implemented and effective.

9 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out this review to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. We talked with the area manager, four care staff employed by the service and four people who lived at the home about the quality of care. Many of the people who lived at the home were not able to talk directly with us because of their dementia so we used different methods to see whether they received the care and support they needed. We looked at the care plans for three people who lived at the home to see how their needs should be met and we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We saw that people were well groomed and dressed appropriately for the weather and activities on the day. We saw that staff treated people with kindness and understood people's moods and behaviours. We found that staff spoke to people by name and anticipated people's needs to eat, drink and communicate. We saw that people responded positively when staff engaged with them and appeared to be calm and relaxed. One person we talked with said, 'The nurses and carers are nice, they pull my leg and we have a joke'. This meant that people were cared for and supported according to their individual needs.

We found that people's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. We saw that people's health and care needs had been checked and individual plans were made to support them. We found that some people needed regular visits from district nurses and other people visited their doctor only if they were poorly. This meant that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We found that people's care plans were detailed and listed people's individual likes and dislikes as well as their support needs. People we talked with told us they were happy living at the home and that staff were friendly and thoughtful. One person told us that one staff member was, 'Marvellous, she only has to look at you to find out if you are alright'. We saw that staff anticipated people's needs because they knew them very well and we saw that people responded positively to staff's conversation and suggestions. This meant that people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

We found that most staff had received the training they needed to care for people, but that some staff's training needed updating. We talked to the area manager about this and he told us that he would monitor whether all staff accessed the on-line training service. Staff we talked with said they had supervisions sessions with seniors and that they felt supported by their management and could talk to them at any time. This meant that staff were supported to deliver the care that people needed.

We found that the provider had taken steps to safeguard people from the risk of abuse by having a safeguarding policy and clear procedures for staff to follow if they had any concerns. One member of staff told us they felt confident their concerns would be dealt with.

On the day of our visit we knew that the provider had recently taken over the management of this long established service and we found they were implementing changes to the quality assurance process. The provider told us about their refurbishment plans. We saw that the registered manager had implemented the provider's new system of quality checks and we saw how the provider checked that actions were taken to improve when required. This meant that the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people living in the home.