We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Tudors Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Tudors Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
The Tudors Care Home is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 44 people in a two storey adapted building. It provides a service to older people and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people using the service.
Peoples experience of using this service:
Staff went above and beyond what was expected to ensure people could write their own care plan, so care was truly individual. People lived rich, meaningful and fulfilling lives and were treated equally well.
Staff knew each person very well and they supported, and responded to, people's preferences in a very individual way. People's sense of achievement was promoted and one person who had been invited to be on local radio and they were delighted to tell their relatives about all that people did at The Tudors Care Home.
People’s independence and access to systems and technology greatly enhanced people's communication skills, including in their own language, using pictures, audio books or braille.
Complaints were used to help drive improvements and people benefited from changes that were made. Staff showed people true compassion and took account of the finer points of people's lives and cultures at a sensitive and important time of their life. One person who wrote their care plan had stated their end of life wishes to be at The Tudors Care Home, and to be peacefully alone.
The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities, were approachable, listened and acted. They had embedded and promoted an open and honest staff team culture to help ensure people and staff were listened to. The staff team promoted an embedded equality and diversity culture and treated people equally well.
Staff were supported in a positive way in a variety of ways including mentoring, shadowing experienced staff and learning from the management team.
Audits and governance systems were very effective in identifying and implementing improvements. People were fully involved in how the service was run and their voice was listened to and acted on. One person said, “What I like most is we always have a natter, [staff] really look after us. They are very respectful, even if they are at the end of their shift.”
The registered manager worked exceptionally well with others to provide people with joined up care and support. This transformed people's lives for the better.
People were helped to stay safe by staff who had training and skills in safeguarding. One person described to us how nice and careful staff were with their mobility support. Risks to people including medicines administration were identified and managed well.
There were systems and procedures in place that promoted infection prevention and control (IPC) practises. Lessons following incidents were learned and shared amongst the staff team.
People's assessed needs were effectively met by trained staff. People were supported to eat and drink healthily. Staff enabled people to access healthcare services including visits by health professionals. Reviews of people's care needs were undertaken regularly, and when their health needs changed. People chose what their home environment looked and felt like.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. One person told us they could choose what to eat, ask for something else or staff would suggest various options.
Staff supported people to express their individuality, live the life they wanted to, and be treated equally well. Staff cared for people with kindness, sincerity and compassion. One person told us how ever so nice staff were. People decided how their care was provided and when. Staff upheld people's privacy and dignity whilst also promoting independence.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Why we inspected:
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about risks to people’s safety, staffing infection prevention and control, complaints and the management of the service. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see all five relevant key questions sections of this full report.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Outstanding (published 1 June 2018). At our focused inspection in February 2021 we looked at infection prevention and control procedures only, but we did not provide a rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Two organisational management staff had been asked to work at the service to help run and have oversight of the service in the absence of the registered manager and deputy manager. Staff at the service followed government guidance for any visiting external health and social care professionals on admission to the home.
Best interest decisions were in place for people who lacked the mental capacity to consent to be swab testing.
There was individualised guidance for staff on how to support people’s well-being regarding interests as relatives and friends’ visits had currently been stopped due to the outbreak. People were being supported with video call and telephone calls in place of face to face visiting.
Post was held for 72 hours before circulating to people to reduce the risk of cross contamination.
An external company was also used in addition to in-house cleaning staff, to come in and sanitize a room after it became empty.
The Tudors Care Home accommodates 44 people in one adapted building. At the time of our unannounced inspection there were 41 older people, some of whom were living with dementia.
This inspection took place on the 18 April 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of this service since their CQC registration changed in May 2017.
The service 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.
Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff knew how to report any suspicions of poor care practice and, or harm. Information and guidance about how to report concerns were available for staff, people and visitors to the service to refer to.
People were assisted to take their medication as prescribed. Processes were in place and followed by staff members to ensure that infection prevention and control was promoted and the risk of cross contamination was reduced as far as possible.
There were building adaptations in place to help people with limited mobility. This meant that people could access all of the services internal areas and the garden.
Staff assisted people in a kind, patient and respectful way. Staff knew people’s personal histories and cultural backgrounds well and worked with people to make them feel ‘at home,’ and to promote a person-centred culture at the service. Staff were sensitive to times when people needed caring and compassionate support. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained and promoted by the staff members supporting them.
People and their relatives’ were given the opportunity to be involved in the setting up and review of their individual support and care plans. People’s equality, diversity and human rights were embedded in the service provided.
Staff actively encouraged and empowered people to maintain their interests, develop new interests and, be involved in the running of the service. Staff also supported people take part in activities and maintain links with the local community to promote social inclusion. People were assisted to maintain their life skills with assistance from staff to promote their independence. People’s friends and family were encouraged by staff to visit the service and were made to feel very welcome.
People were supported and encouraged by staff to have enough to eat and drink. People were assisted to access a range of external health care professionals and were supported by staff to maintain their health and well-being.
People were supported by staff and external health care professionals, when required, at the end of their life, to have a comfortable and as dignified a death as possible.
People had individualised care and support plans in place which documented their needs. These plans informed and prompted staff on how a person would like their care and support to be given, in line with external health care professional advice and guidance.
Individual risks to people were identified before they moved into the service and were monitored by staff. Plans were put into place to minimise people’s risks as far as practicable to allow them to live as independent and safe a life as possible.
The registered manager had a recruitment process in place. Staff were only employed within the service after all essential safety checks had been suitably completed. Staff were well supported and trained to be able to provide care which met people’s individual needs. The standard of staff members’ work performance was reviewed by the registered manager through competency checks, supervisions and appraisals.
Compliments about the care and support provided had been received and the positive feedback shared with staff. Complaints were investigated and action was taken to make any necessary improvements.
The registered manager actively sought feedback about the quality of the service provided and people’s experience whilst living at the service from people and their relatives’. This feedback was captured in a variety of different innovative ways and enabled the registered manager to improve the service provided. There was also an effective and on-going quality monitoring process in place to identify areas of improvement needed within the service and actions were in place to make and sustain these improvements.
Staff were very clear about the high standard of care and support they were expected to deliver. Staff knew the visions and values of the service and these were embedded. The staff at the service had won an organisational award for the dementia care that they provided to people.
Records showed that the CQC was informed of incidents that the provider was legally obliged to notify us of.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.