• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Obelisk House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Obelisk Rise, Kingsthorpe, Northampton, Northamptonshire, NN2 8SA (01604) 850910

Provided and run by:
Olympus Care Services Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

29 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on the 29 June 2016. Obelisk House provides accommodation for up to 44 people who require personal care. There were 41 people in residence during this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 were safeguarded from harm as the provider had systems in place to prevent, recognise and report concerns to the relevant authorities. Senior staff knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had applied that knowledge appropriately.

There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person. Recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the role.

People’s care and support needs were continually monitored and reviewed to ensure that care was provided in the way that they needed. People had been involved in planning and reviewing their care when they wanted to.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being and ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when required.

Staff understood the importance of obtaining people’s consent when supporting them with their daily living needs. People experienced caring relationships with the staff that provided good interaction by taking the time to listen and understand what people needed.

People’s needs were met in line with their individual care plans and assessed needs. Staff took time to get to know people and ensured that people’s care was tailored to their individual needs.

People had the information they needed to make a complaint and the service had processes in place to respond to any complaints.

People were supported by a team of staff that had the managerial guidance and support they needed to carry out their roles. The quality of the service was monitored by the audits regularly carried out by the manager and by the provider.

06/10/2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 6th October 2015. Obelisk House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 44 people. On the day of our inspection there were 40 people using the service.

A registered manager was not in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 felt safe living at Obelisk House but improvements were required to ensure staffing levels were sufficient. Action had been taken to prevent any more people using the service until sufficient numbers of staff had been recruited. Risk assessments were generic and required personalising to meet people’s individual needs. People were appropriately supported to take their medicines and secure storage arrangements were in place to hold people’s medicines. Staff recruitment procedures were robust to ensure staff were suitable for their positions and staff were knowledgeable about how they could identify and report preventable abuse.

Improvements were required to the training that staff received, particularly with moving and handling techniques staff used to support people moving and transferring. In addition, improvements were required to ensure accurate training records were held by the service. The manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) however improvements were required to the level of detail contained in people’s records about this. Most people were given sufficient support to eat nutritious meals and people received timely healthcare when they needed it. Staff received regular supervision with senior staff about their performance.

People received support from friendly and kind staff. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained and people’s individuality was respected. People were supported to make their own choices about the care they received and people were encouraged to make their environment as homely as possible.

People were involved in their care planning and deciding on the support they would like to receive. However, care was not always delivered in the way that people wished and care records did not contain sufficient detail to show how people had received their care. People were offered little stimulation and care did not always correlate with people’s interests. Staff were knowledgeable about how to support people when they became distressed or unwell. People were supported to maintain their relationships with people that were important to them and complaints and concerns were investigated and acted on.

There was not a registered manager in post and a current application had not been made to the CQC. Staff had confidence the service was being well-led through a period of change in managers and the atmosphere and culture of the service was positive with a team approach. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service however these were not always effective at identifying where improvements were required. People were involved when changes were made and were asked for their feedback about the service.

We identified that the provider was in breach of two of the Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (Part 3) and you can see at the end of this report the action we have asked them to take.

10 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people about their experience of using the service. All of the people we spoke with confirmed they received a good standard of care. They told us the staff asked them about the care they needed and respected their wishes. We found that people's preferences and their preferred daily routines were recorded within their individual care plans.

We found that people were receiving care and treatment in accordance with their individual care plans but the care plans were not always signed and dated by the author or the person receiving the care.

We found that staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal and that there was adequate training in place. We saw that the provider carried out annual quality assurance surveys to give people that used the service, their relatives and other people involved in their care the opportunity to provide feedback about the service.