You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 January 2019

Queensway House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

This inspection took place on 19 and 25 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Queensway House provides care and support to up to 80 people some of who live with dementia. At the time of our inspection 56 people were living at the service.

The home had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

People and staff told us at times there were not sufficient numbers of staff deployed and at times experienced delays when seeking assistance. Our observations on the day however did not support these views as we saw staff were attentive and responsive to people's needs. Care records were not consistently reflective of people’s changing needs, however staff were aware of what support people required.

People felt safe at the service, staff had received relevant training on how to safeguard people and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. Risks to people’s safety and well-being were identified and managed to keep them safe from harm. Relevant pre-employment checks had been completed for all staff and safe recruitment practices followed. Medicines were stored appropriately, administered to people as the prescriber intended, managed safely and checked regularly. People lived in a clean and hygienic environment and were cared for by staff who followed robust infection control procedures.

People felt staff were well trained. Staff had attended relevant training to understand their role and spoke positively about the training they were provided with. Staff felt supported and had regular supervisions and appraisals. The registered manager was in the process of reviewing how people’s consent to the care they received was captured in their care plans. Staff were aware of how to support those people who may have not been able to provide their verbal consent. People’s nutritional needs were met and responded to when people were at risk of weight loss. The environment was undergoing a planned renovation and decoration.

People told us that staff were friendly and respected their privacy. Staff knew people well and were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs and demonstrated a caring approach. People's privacy and dignity was promoted.

People received care that responded to their individual choices and promoted their independence. People and their relatives were involved in planning how people`s support would be delivered. People were supported to pursue hobbies and interests. People were able to have visitors without restriction and able to see them in privacy. People were encouraged to provide feedback on the service they received and knew how to make a complaint. Their feedback was used to improve the quality of care they received.

People’s care records were not always updated in a timely manner when people’s needs changed. People, relatives and staff were positive about the registered manager and felt they were visible and approachable. Staff were encouraged to attend team meetings which were held regularly.

The provider operated systems that constantly monitored and reviewed the quality of care people received. The areas identified at this inspection as requiring improvement the provider took action to immediately address these. Notifications required to be sent to us were made in a timely manner.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 January 2019

The service was safe.

Some people and staff told us there were not always sufficient numbers of staff. Our observations were people's needs were met on the day in a timely manner.

People were protected from harm by staff who were trained and reported their concerns appropriately.

People's changing health needs were identified and managed safely.

People received their medicines safely as intended by the prescriber.

People lived in a clean, hygienic environment.

Staff were aware of how to keep people safe in the event of an emergency such as fire.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 January 2019

The service was effective.

People’s needs and choices were assessed and care and treatment was delivered in line with current legislation.

Staff had induction training when they joined the service and received ongoing training and personal development.

People's consent was sought prior to care being delivered. However when decisions were made in a person`s best interest, these were not always documented.

People's nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 January 2019

The service was caring.

People were treated in a dignified and sensitive manner.

Staff knew people well and listened to their views and opinions about their care.

People's privacy was respected and maintained.

Peoples confidential information was kept secure.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People contributed to their care plan based upon their view of their needs, wishes and independence.

Staff were aware of people's choices and preferences and delivered care accordingly.

People were supported to pursue activities and hobbies, and were part of a wider community.

People`s visitors could freely see them without restrictions.

People felt confident in raising a complaint.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2019

The service was not consistently well-led.

People's care records were not accurately maintained.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care people received.

People were positive about the management of the service and felt the registered manager was approachable.

People's views and opinions were sought to improve the quality of the care they received.