You are here

OSJCT Henry Cornish Care Centre Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at OSJCT Henry Cornish Care Centre. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 January 2017

This inspection took place on 4 January 2017 and was unannounced.

Henry Cornish Care Centre is a residential home that provides accommodation for 36 older adults. In addition to the 36 residential beds there are 14 Intermediate Care beds (ICU). The intermediate care services are provided to people to help them in rehabilitation and to be as independent as possible following discharge from hospitals. At the time of the inspection, there were 47 people living at the service and 14 of these were on the ICU.

There was a new manager in post who had been in post for one day and told us they would be applying to become the registered manager for the service with the Care Quality Commission. 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 manager worked closely with the deputy manager and area operations manager.

Leadership within the service was well structured, open and transparent at all levels and promoted strong organisational values. This resulted in a caring culture that put people using the service at the centre. People, staff and healthcare professionals were complimentary about the management team and how the service was run.

The provider did not always maintain confidentiality. People’s care records were left in their rooms accessible to anyone. This was general practice in the home without consulting people on their preferences. However, the provider took immediate actions to address these concerns when they were raised.

People who were living at the service told us they felt safe. The staff had a clear understanding of how to safeguard people and protect their health and well-being. People received their medicines as prescribed. There were systems in place to manage safe administration and storage of medicines.

People had a range of individualised risk assessments in place to keep them safe and to help them maintain their independence. Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. The service promoted positive risk taking. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed the guidance in care plans to keep them safe.

There were enough suitably qualified and experienced staff to meet people needs. The provider had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.

Staff received adequate training and support to carry out their roles effectively. People felt supported by competent staff. Staff benefitted from regular supervision (one to one meetings with their line manager) and yearly professional development reviews (PDR) to help them meet the needs of the people they cared for.

The management team and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and applied its principles in their work. Where people were thought to lack capacity to make certain decisions, assessments had been completed in line with the principles of MCA. The management team and staff understood their responsibilities under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.

People benefited from a pleasant dining experience and their nutritional needs were met. A variety of meal choices was available and people received their meals in a timely manner. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect and promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. People received good care that was personalised to meet their individual needs.

People were supported to maintain their health and were referred for specialist advice as required. Where people had received end of life care, staff had taken actions

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 January 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people were managed and assessments were in place to manage identified risks and keep people safe. The service promoted positive risk taking.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet people’s needs.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures.

Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff received training and support to carry out their roles effectively.

People were supported to have their nutritional needs met.

Staff had good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People who were being deprived of their liberty were cared for in the least restrictive way.

People were supported to access healthcare support when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 January 2017

The service was caring.

People’s care records were left in their rooms accessible to anyone. However, the management team took immediate action.

People were treated as individuals and were involved in their care.

People were supported by caring staff that treated them with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People received activities and stimulation which met their needs.

People’s needs were assessed and personalised care plans were written to identify how people’s needs would be met.

People’s views were sought and acted upon.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident complaints would be dealt with effectively.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 January 2017

The service was well led.

People and staff told us the management team was open and approachable.

The leadership created a culture of openness that made people and staff feel included and well supported.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and drive improvement.