Background to this inspection
Updated
9 January 2019
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 inspection took place on 30 October and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.
We reviewed other information we held about the service, including any statutory notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally obliged to send us within the required timescale. Before the inspection, we also contacted the local authority commissioners for the service and the local authority safeguarding team to gain their views of the service provided. We spoke with a visiting district nurse on the day.
Before the inspection, the provider completed 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 improvements they plan to make. This information helped us plan our inspection.
We looked at care records for three people who used the service. We examined documents relating to recruitment, supervision and training records and various records about how the service was managed. We also had a tour of the home and viewed people's bedroom's with their permission.
We spoke to eight people who used the service, two visitors, the manager, regional support manager, two housekeeping staff, the chef, activity co-ordinator and three care staff members.
Updated
9 January 2019
The inspection took place on 30 October 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we would be visiting.
At our last inspection in May 2016 we rated the service good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good.
Half Acre House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Half Acre House can accommodate up to 29 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people using the service.
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. At the time of our visit, the manager had been in post only three weeks although they had worked at the home several years previously. The manager told us they would be applying to register with CQC.
People we spoke with told us they felt safe at Half Acre House. Staff had been trained in safeguarding issues and knew how to recognise and report any abuse.
People’s medicines were managed and stored safely. We saw the environment was clean and well maintained.
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Any new staff were appropriately vetted to make sure they were suitable and had the skills to work at the service. The staff were given support by means of regular training, supervision and appraisal.
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.
Peoples dietary needs were well recorded and supported.
There were friendly relationships between people and staff. People told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect and their wishes were listened to.
People’s health and mental well-being was well monitored. Staff responded promptly to any changes in the person’s health or general demeanour.
A new activity co-ordinator was in post and they were being mentored by an experienced co-ordinator from another service who was sharing their ideas and knowledge about activity planning.
Care records were all maintained although some work needed to take place to ensure people's end of life wishes were captured. The manager had begun to address this on the day of our visit.
People told us they knew how to raise a concern if they were unhappy with anything and we saw people were asked about their views of the service through meetings.
Systems were in place for auditing the quality of the service and for making improvements. We saw the manager was keen to share learning from incidents and to take forward improvements they had identified through their quality assurance process.