You are here

Keychange Charity Romans Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The inspection took place on 6 and 7 June 2017 and was unannounced.

Keychange Charity Romans Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 30 older people with a variety of health and support needs, including some people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 23 people were living at the home, including one person who was staying for a short break. Keychange Charity Romans Care Home is a large detached house close to amenities in Southwick. Communal areas include a main lounge, dining room and large conservatory adjacent to the dining room. A secure, fenced garden is located at the rear of the premises. Accommodation is provided for people over three floors, with lift access.

At the time of our inspection, the registered manager had left the service and had applied to de-register with the Care Quality Commission; plans to recruit a new manager had not yet been put in place. 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 day-to-day management of the service was being undertaken by two deputy managers.

Robust systems were not in place to monitor and measure the quality of the service overall at the home. Some monthly checks had been completed, but there was no audit in place for the management of medicines.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated legislation. However, one person, who had bedrails, did not have the necessary consent or best interests decision in place. This was discussed with management who stated appropriate steps would be taken to rectify this.

Relatives and people spoke highly of the care they received and written comments were positive. People felt they were involved in developing the service through residents’ meetings and formal monthly surveys about different aspects of the home. Staff felt supported.

People felt safe living at the home. Staff had been trained to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew what action to take if they had any concerns. Risks to people were identified, assessed and managed safely with appropriate guidance for staff. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs, although comments from people were mixed. Some people felt there were enough staff and others said there could be a shortage, especially at busy times of the day. Safe recruitment practices were in place. Medicines were managed safely.

Staff had been trained in a range of areas, received regular supervisions and attended staff meetings. People felt that staff were well trained and approachable. Training was delivered to staff in an electronic format. New staff followed the Care Certificate, a universally recognised qualification. People had sufficient to eat and drink and were offered a range of choices in their meals. Drinks were readily available throughout the day and night. People had access to a range of healthcare services and were supported by healthcare professionals.

People were looked after by kind and caring staff who knew them well. People spoke positively about the caring nature of staff and that staff responded promptly to their needs. People’s spiritual needs were catered for. People were encouraged to express their views and to be involved in all aspects of their care. They were treated with dignity and respect.

Care plans provided information about people and guidance for staff on how they wished to be cared for. Care plans were in the process of transferring from written records into an electronic format. Detailed information had been drawn up on every aspect of people’s care. A range of activities was available to people which were planned by an activities co-ordinator. People fel

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from harm by staff who had been trained to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew what action to take.

People�s risks had been identified and assessed appropriately. Guidance was in place for staff on how to mitigate risks.

Staffing levels were adequate and safe recruitment practices were in place.

Medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was effective.

Staff completed training in a range of areas and had regular supervisions. Staff meetings took place.

In the main, consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and put this into practice.

People had sufficient to eat and drink and were supported by a range of healthcare professionals and services.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was caring.

People felt staff were kind and caring and that positive relationships had been achieved.

People were supported to express their views and in making decisions about their care.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans contained comprehensive information about people and detailed guidance for staff.

A range of activities was organised by the activities co-ordinator in line with people�s choices.

Complaints were dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2017

Some aspects of the service were not well led.

There was a lack of systems in place to measure and monitor the quality of care delivered overall.

The previous manager had de-registered with the Commission, but no steps had been taken to recruit a new manager at the time of our inspection.

People felt involved in developing the service through residents� meetings and formal surveys.

Staff felt supported and made positive comments about the home.