You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

This inspection visit took place on 12 September 2017 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection on 07 March 2017 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements because we found breaches of legal requirements. This was in relation to care planning, staff training and good governance. The provider sent us an action plan saying they would meet the legal requirements. During our inspection visit on 12 September 2017 we found these actions had been completed.

Waterside Care Home is registered to provide personal care for a maximum of 19 older people. The home is an adapted property, which is situated on the promenade at Bispham. The accommodation comprises of 19 single bedrooms, of which 14 have en-suite facilities. A stair lift enables people to gain access between the ground and first floor. At the time of our inspection visit there were 19 people who lived at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. We saw they were kind and patient and treated people with dignity and respect.

People who lived at the home and one person visiting their relative told us they were happy with the care provided. Comments received included, “I am very happy here the staff couldn’t do any more for me.” And, “I have been very happy with the care provided for [relative].”

The service hadn’t recruited any new staff since our last inspection. Recruitment procedures were found to be safe during that inspection.

Staff had received training to enable them to support people who presented behaviour which challenged the service safely.

Staff spoken with had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibility to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

We looked around the building and found it had been maintained, was clean and hygienic and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required. The registered provider had an ongoing refurbishment programme in place making improvements to the environment. This included new carpets and flooring being fitted throughout the home and improvements to people’s bedrooms.

Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storing in place.

The service demonstrated appropriate systems to assess risk for people living at the home. Information about how staff supported people who presented behaviour which challenged the service was in place to inform staff how to support people safely.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Staff knew people they supported and provided a personalised service in a caring and professional manner.

People told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

We saw people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met. The service had responded promptly when people had experienced health problems.

People who lived at the home told us they enjoyed a variety of activities which were organised for their entertainment.

The service had a complaints proc

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 11 October 2017

We found that action had been taken to improve safety.

The service had procedures in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care.

Staffing levels were sufficient with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. Recruitment procedures the service had in place were safe.

Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who lived at the home, staff and visitors. Written plans were in place to manage these risks. There were processes for recording accidents and incidents.

People were protected against the risks associated with unsafe use and management of medicines. This was because medicines were managed safely.

We found that action had been taken to improve safety and to meet the regulations breached. However, we have rated this key area as requires improvement because the management team and staff need to demonstrate consistent good practice over time.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were sufficiently skilled and experienced to support them to have a good quality of life.

People received a choice of suitable and nutritious meals and drinks in sufficient quantities to meet their needs.

The registered manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). They had knowledge of the process to follow.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was caring.

People were able to make decisions for themselves and be involved in planning their own care.

We observed people were supported by caring and attentive staff who showed patience and compassion to the people in their care.

Staff undertaking their daily duties were observed respecting people’s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People participated in a range of activities which kept them entertained.

People’s care plans had been developed with them to identify what support they required and how they would like this to be provided.

People told us they knew their comments and complaints would be listened to and acted on effectively.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was well led.

Systems and procedures were in place to monitor and assess the quality of service people received.

The registered manager had clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Staff understood their role and were committed to providing a good standard of support for people in their care.

A range of audits were in place to monitor the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home. Quality assurance was checked upon and action was taken to make improvements, where applicable.