You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 31 May 2018

This inspection visit took place on 16 May 2018 and was unannounced.

This is the first inspection at Pilling nursing home following the new provider’s registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 06 April 2017.

At this inspection we found the service was rated Good.

Pilling nursing home is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Pilling nursing home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 30 people who require nursing or personal care. The home specialises in dementia care. Accommodation within the home is situated on two floors with a passenger lift providing access to the upper floor. The home provides communal areas with two lounges and two dining rooms available. Car parking spaces are available to the front of the building and there is a garden at the rear of the property. At the time of our inspection visit there were 28 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.

Although a number of people had limited verbal communication and were unable to converse with us, we were able to speak with three people who lived at the home and three people visiting their relatives. People told us they were happy and well cared for and felt safe living at the home. One person visiting the home said, “The staff are lovely and caring people. I have no worries about [relative]. I know they are safe.”

Procedures were in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

The service had sufficient staffing levels in place to provide support people required. We saw requests for assistance were responded to in a timely manner.

Medication procedures observed protected people from unsafe management of their medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed and when needed and appropriate records had been completed.

We saw there was an emphasis on promoting dignity, respect and independence for people who lived at the home. People told us staff treated them as individuals and delivered person centred care.

We looked around the building and found it had been maintained, was clean and hygienic and a safe place to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.

The design of the building and facilities provided were appropriate for the care and support provided.

The service had safe infection control procedures in place. People visiting the home told us they were happy with the standard of hygiene.

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

People’s care and support had been planned with them or a family member. They told us they had been consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered.

Care plans were organised and had identified care and support people required. We found they were

Inspection areas



Updated 31 May 2018

The service was safe.

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 reviewed infection prevention and control processes and found suitable systems were in place.



Updated 31 May 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who received mandatory training.

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

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



Updated 31 May 2018

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.



Updated 31 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s end of life wishes had been discussed with them and documented.

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

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



Updated 31 May 2018

The service was well led.

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

The service 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