Archived: St Helens Care Home

St Helens care home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 36 people at the time of the inspection. St Helens care home accommodates up to 40 people in one adapted building.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Some people and their relatives told us they would like to see more activities taking place in the home. People told us they were happy with the care and support they received.

People were not always safe from the risk of harm or infection. Some areas of the home were not clean and mal odour was present. The kitchen was not clean and some equipment was unclean and cross infection risks were observed. Some equipment used by people who used the service was not always maintained not fit for purpose. The conservatory area of the home was unsafe as it reached unsafe cold temperatures.

Audits and monitoring systems were not always effective at managing the service and making the improvements required. Health and safety checks were in place however, they failed to address the infection control issues found on inspection. Where environmental concerns had been raised by the registered manager with the provider they were not always responded to.

The registered manager and provider responded immediately to the concerns and issues raised during our inspection and took action to either clean or replace items highlighted.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. However, feedback regarding the food was mixed. Support was provided in a way which put people and their preferences first. Information was provided for people in the correct format for them. However, menu boards were damaged and in need of replacement.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives regarding the range of activities available to people in the home to protect them from social isolation and keep them engaged. We made a recommendation that activities are reviewed with people and the home research engaging options.

People had care plans in place and these were written in a person-centred way. People also had a ‘my journal’ booklet with life history, likes and dislikes information within. Medicines were managed well, administered and recorded accurately keeping people safe. People who received ‘as and when required’ medicines had clear instructions in place.

People were supported by enough staff were recruited safely. People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. Staff received support and a variety of appropriate training to meet people’s needs.

Individualised risk assessments were in place. Staff were confident to raise concerns appropriately to safeguard people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Appropriate healthcare professionals were included in people’s care and support, as and when this was needed.

There were systems in place for communicating with staff, people and their relatives to ensure they were fully informed via team meetings and communications. People had good links to the local community through regular access to local services.

People were supported to be independent were they could, their rights were respected and access to advocacy was available.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 16 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches at this inspection in relation to the safety and cleanliness of the premises, infection control, and oversight from management.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

St Helens Care Home is based in a residential area of West Auckland, County Durham. The home provides personal care and nursing care for older people, people with acquired brain injury, physical disabilities, mental health and people living with dementia. The service is situated close to the local amenities and transport links. On the day of our inspection there were 36 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 last inspected the service in October 2014 and rated the service as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

The atmosphere of the service was busy, but very welcoming. People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt at home and visitors were welcome and that the home was 'like one big family.'

Without exception we saw staff interacting with people in a person centred and caring way. We spent time observing the support that took place in the service. We saw that people were always respected by staff and treated with kindness. We saw staff communicating with people well and at times use their skills positively to reassure people who used the service.

People were encouraged to enhance their wellbeing on a daily basis to take part in activities that were valued and this contributed positively to the busy atmosphere of the home. Staff spent their time positively engaging with people as a group and on a one to one basis in meaningful activities. People were supported to go out regularly too. Throughout the day we saw that people who used the service, relatives and staff were comfortable and had a positive rapport with the registered manager and also with each other.

People’s care plans were written in plain English and in a person centred way and they also included a ‘my choices’ booklet that made use of, personal history and described individuals preferences and support needs. These were regularly reviewed and some had included family members in the process.

Care plans contained risk assessments. These identified risks and described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. The care plans showed that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health care professionals where necessary, for example: their GP, dentist or optician.

People who used the service were supported on a one to one basis or by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their individual needs and wishes in a person centred way.

Staff training records, showed staff were supported and able to maintain and develop their skills through training and development opportunities that were accessible at the service. The staff confirmed they attended a range of valuable learning opportunities.

Staff had regular supervisions and appraisals with the registered manager, where they had the opportunity to discuss their care practice and identify further mandatory and vocational training needs. Records that showed there were robust recruitment processes in place.

We observed how the service administered medicines. We looked at how records were kept and spoke with nursing staff who administered medicines and we found that the process was safe.

People were encouraged to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. They were offered a varied selection of drinks and snacks. The daily menu was reflective of people’s likes and dislikes and offered varied choices and it was not an issue if people wanted something different.

A complaints and compliments procedure was in place. This provided information on the action to take if someone wished to make a complaint and what they should expect to happen next. The compliments were complimentary to the care staff, management and the service as a whole. People also had their rights respected and access to advocacy services if needed.

We found an effective quality assurance survey took place regularly using an ipad and we looked at the results. The service had been regularly reviewed through a range of internal and external audits. We saw that action had been taken to improve the service or put right any issues. People who used the service and their representatives were regularly asked at meetings for their views about the care and service they received.

The relationships between staff and the people who they supported were good and personal support was provided in a way that people had consented to. This promoted and protected their privacy and dignity. This was confirmed when we spoke with six people who used the service.

Suitable arrangements were in place for handling complaints and for protecting people from abuse.

There was a competent staff team who had been appropriately recruited and had the training, skills and experience to meet the specific conditions of the people who they supported.

The arrangements for supporting people to make decisions about their daily lives and preferences were recorded in their care plans. Each person was supported to take appropriate risks to promote as much independence as possible.

Suitable arrangements were in place for people to take part in appropriate activities in line with their needs and preferences.

The relationships between staff and the people who lived there were good and personal support was provided in a way that promoted and protected their privacy and dignity.

The meals provided by the home were satisfactory and gave people a varied, nutritious diet.

Suitable arrangements were in place for handling complaints and for protecting people from abuse. People told us they could share any worries with the staff and felt their views were listened to.

There was a stable and competent staff team who had the training, skills and experience to meet the specific conditions of the people who lived there.