Archived: Carders Court Care Home

Updated 18 August 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was an unannounced inspection on the 17 July 2018 and was conducted by three adult social care inspectors, an assistant inspector and two Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has experience of caring for older people or a dementia related illness.

We requested and received a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We used this information to help with planning the inspection.

Before our inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications the provider had made to us. Notifications tell us about any incidents or events that affect people who use the service. We also asked Healthwatch Rochdale and the local authority if they had any information about the service they wished to share. We did not receive any concerns from them.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us to understand the experience of people who cannot talk with us. We spent time in the communal areas of the service and carried out an observation using SOFI.

We spoke with fourteen people who used the service, five relatives, the manager, six care staff members and the cook.

During our inspection we observed the support provided by staff in communal areas of the home. We looked at the care records of seven people and medicines administration records for ten people who used the service. We also looked at the recruitment, training and supervision records for six members of staff, minutes of meetings and a variety of other records related to the management of the service.

Updated 18 August 2018

Carders Court is a care home providing nursing and personal care for older people. It is situated in the Castleton area of Rochdale. The home is purpose-built, single storey and comprises of five separate houses, each with 30 single bedrooms. There is ample car parking to the front of the home and there are garden areas around each unit for residents to sit out. There were 127 people accommodated at the home on the day of the inspection.

At the last inspection of June 2017 there was a breach in the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations. Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment. This was for some aspects of medicines management which was not safe. The service sent us an action plan to show us how they would improve. At this inspection the service had improved and there were no breaches.

There was no registered manager. However, there was a person employed by the service experienced in care home management who had applied to become registered manager. The application is currently being processed by the CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 made a recommendation in relation to medicines. We asked the provider to look at best practice guidance around the returning of medicines no longer required.

We made a further recommendation in relation to signage in the environment. We asked the provider to look at best practice guidance around the signage of all units of the home where people have a dementia related illness.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff were safe to work with vulnerable adults.

The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow.

The home was clean, tidy and homely in character.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business contingency plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities. This helped to protect the health and welfare of staff and people who used the service.

People were given choices in the food they ate and told us it was good. People were encouraged to eat and drink to ensure they were hydrated and well nourished.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work related issues and ask for any training they felt necessary.

We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People told us staff were kind and caring.

We saw from our observations of staff and records that people who used the service were given choices in many aspects of their lives and helped to remain independent where possible.

We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed.

There were sufficient activities to help keep people stimulated.

People were treated in accordance to their age, gender, sexuality and religion.

Plans of care were individual, person centred and reviewed regularly to help meet their health and social care needs.

Visiting was unrestricted so that people could remain in contact with family and friends.

Quality assurance audits helped the service maintain and improve their standards of support.

Nearly all the people we spoke with and staff thought the managers were approachable and supportive.