You are here

Archived: Netherton Green Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 June 2017

The inspection took place on 22 and 23 March 2017 and was unannounced. The service had been registered with us previously and was rated as requires improvement. There has been a change to the provider’s legal entity and this was the first inspection since this service was re-registered in January 2017.

Netherton Green Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing support for up to 120 older adults with a variety of health conditions including dementia. The home is a purpose built building and consists of four separate single storey buildings each accommodating up to 30 older people. The four units are called Saltwell, Darby House, Windmill House and Primrose. On Windmill House, nursing care was provided to people who lived with dementia and 27people

were in occupancy. Primrose provided care for people who lived with dementia and 29 people were in occupancy. On Darby House palliative nursing care was provided and 27 people were in occupancy. Saltwell provided intermediate/rehabilitation nursing care and 26 people were in occupancy. This is a step down support unit for people discharged from hospital who were not ready to return to their own home.

On the day of our inspection there were a total of 109 people living in the home. A acting manager had recently been appointed and was managing the home with the support from an area manager in the absence of the 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.

People felt safe in the service and staff knew how to ensure their safety as they had received the appropriate safeguarding training. Sufficient staff were not always available to support people appropriately. People were administered their medicines as prescribed as the gaps we had identified on the medicines administration record was due to recording errors.

While the provider was aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 they did not ensure people were supported in the least restrictive way. Staff had regular training to ensure their knowledge was up to date. Staff were able to get support in the way of regular supervision and the opportunity to attend regular staff meetings. People were able to decide what they had to eat and drink. People were able to access healthcare from external professionals where needed.

While people felt staff were mainly kind and caring we found some inconsistencies in the actions from staff where they did not demonstrate they were always kind and caring. However we found that people’s privacy, dignity and independence was being respected. People were not always supported to make choices.

While staff had access to equality and diversity training, people’s cultural needs were not being met in a consistent way. People were not able to access their care plan or assessment documentation consistently and where reviews took place people were not being involved on a regular basis. People’s likes and dislikes were not being considered as part of the activities being made available. The provider had a complaints process to enable people to make a complaint but complaints made were not being managed consistently.

The provider’s care records were not consistently up to date or accurately reflected the support people received. The provider did not ensure they notified us where a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application had been approved by the supervisory body.

People were able to share their views on the service by way of completing a questionnaire. The provider ensured the appropriate spot checks and audits were taking place on the service, but the checks were not always effective.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was not always safe.

People were sufficiently happy with how they were administered their medicines.

There was not consistently sufficient staff to ensure people were supported timely.

People told us they felt safe.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was not always effective.

While the provider was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) they did not ensure that people were supported in the least restrictive way on a consistent basis.

Staff were able to get support from management when needed, but did not get sufficient training to understand how people should not be restricted.

People were able to get enough to eat and drink to keep them well and they were able to access healthcare as required.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was not consistently caring.

While staff were mostly kind and caring, staff did not always communicate with people.

People were able to express how they wanted to be supported. But where they were unable to express their views they did not have access to advocate services.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence was respected.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was not always responsive.

People did not always have access to their assessment and care plan documentation and were not involved in the reviewing process on a regular basis.

People’s likes and dislikes were not being considered as part of the activities being made available to them consistently. Activities were not being made available on a regular basis to everyone.

People had access to the complaints process, but the provider did not ensure that complaints were handled appropriately.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was not always well led.

People did not know who the acting manager was.

Records were not being kept on an accurate basis to ensure staff knew how to support people.

The provider did not ensure that CQC were notified where a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application had been approved.

People were able to complete a questionnaire about the quality of the service they received. The checks and monitoring of the service was not always effective in identifying areas for improvement.