You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 18 October 2018

During a routine inspection

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.