You are here

Archived: West Ridings 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 3 October 2017

The inspection took place on 18 and 20 July 2017 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the location West Ridings Care Home, registered under Bupa Care Homes Limited, although the home has been operating for a number of years.

West Ridings Care Home is a multi-unit site providing accommodation and nursing care for up to a maximum of 180 people. The service has six units and provides care and support for people with nursing and residential needs including people who are living with dementia. On the day of our visit there were five units open and 108 people living at the home.

The home 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.

The environment was bright, welcoming and inviting, with recent improvements made to the décor to create a homely, friendly feel to each unit.

People had safe care, although the deployment of staff was not always consistent or sufficient to meet people’s needs.

Staff were confident in moving and handling and people had been appropriately assessed to use equipment.

Safeguarding procedures were known by staff, but not always implemented.

The outcome of people’s mental capacity assessments was not always clear and we have made a recommendation for the provider to review this. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, although assessments of people’s mental capacity were variable across the site. People were not fully supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible.

People enjoyed their meals and the food and drink was of good quality, although there was a long delay for people on the Calderdale unit at lunchtime to be served. The recording of people’s food and drinks was not always effective to support people’s needs.

Communication between staff was effective and there was evidence of good teamwork. Staff interaction was patient, kind and caring.

People’s privacy was maintained, although people’s dignity was not always supported on the Calderdale unit and continence needs were not well always managed.

There was evidence of person-centred care and practice matched what was written in people’s files. We found contrasting standards of care on the Calderdale unit where care was more task focused than person-centred.

When staff had time to interact with people, conversations and activities were meaningful. However, people did not always have opportunities for meaningful engagement and some people in the Calderdale unit spent long periods of time in their chairs with little interaction.

Complaints and compliments were recorded and responded to appropriately.

There was clear communication across the whole site and information sharing between the units.

The management team was responsive to issues raised throughout the inspection, taking swift action where matters could be rectified. Although quality assurance systems were in place, these required further rigour to ensure consistency of quality across the whole site.

You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 3 October 2017

The service was not always safe.

Staff were not always deployed effectively to ensure people consistently had safe care.

Safeguarding procedures were not always robustly followed, although staff had received training and knew how to report any concerns.

Staff were confident in their moving and handling techniques and they ensured people's needs had been assessed before using any equipment.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 3 October 2017

The service was not always effective.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, although assessments of people's mental capacity were variable.

People enjoyed the food and drink, although recording of people's intake was not robust.

Staff were supported through supervision and training.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 3 October 2017

The service was not always caring.

Staff ensured people's privacy, although people's dignity in their continence care was not managed well on the Calderdale unit.

Staff interaction was warm, friendly and patient although some people on the Calderdale unit did not receive sufficient attention to support their well-being in a meaningful, caring way .

People's individual spiritual and cultural needs were regarded in the planning of their care.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 3 October 2017

The service was not always responsive.

There was evidence of person-centred care, although this was not consistent throughout the service.

There was variation in the way people were able to access meaningful activities.

Care plans were detailed although people's social histories and interests were not always considered in daily opportunities.

Complaints and compliments were recorded and responded to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 3 October 2017

The service was not always well managed.

There were regular, consistent and detailed audits in place, although these were not robust or accurately completed to assure consistent quality throughout the service.

The management team were visible and active in the service, although not all of the units had consistent leadership.

The registered manager was aware of the strengths and the areas to improve within the service and was proactively working to ensure quality of care was delivered throughout the site.