22 March 2017
During a routine inspection
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.