You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 September 2018

The inspection took place on 24 July 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection continued on 25 July 2018 and was announced.

Pine Martin Grange 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.

Pine Martin Grange is a large detached property in Wareham. The home provides long term and respite accommodation for up to 64 older people with personal care and nursing care needs. At the time of our inspection 22 people were living at the home.

The service did not have a registered manager in post. 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. The registered manager had handed in their notice four days prior to our inspection. The regional director explained that the current deputy home manager was acting up and had started the registration process with us.

People, staff and relatives told us they felt there weren’t enough staff which left people at potential risk of harm. At times where people requiring two staff are receiving personal care and the team leaders or seniors are completing paperwork or administering medicines there is no staff member on the floor supporting others. The regional director and deputy home manager acknowledged our concerns and by the end of day two told us that they had agreed with the provider to increase staffing levels by 12 hours per day over the next three months when it would be reviewed again.

People, relatives, health professionals and staff told us that Pine Martin Grange was a safe home. Safeguarding alerts were being managed and lessons learnt by the home. Staff were able to tell us how they would report and recognise signs of abuse and had received training in safeguarding. Medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines.

People were supported by staff who understood the risks they faced and valued their right to live full lives. Risk assessments in relation to people’s care and treatment were completed, regularly reviewed and up to date.

Care plans were in place which detailed the care and support people needed to remain safe whilst having control and making choices about their lives. Each person had a care plan and associated files which included guidelines to make sure staff supported people in a way they preferred. Staff were able to access care plans and guidance on the go via their hand held devices.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s support needs and received regular local mandatory training as well as training in response to people’s changing needs. Staff told us they received regular supervisions which were carried out by the management team. Staff told us that they found these useful. We reviewed records which confirmed this.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and training records showed that they had received training in this. Capacity assessments and best interest decision paperwork had not always been completed correctly. The management team were reviewing this.

People and relatives told us that the food was good. We reviewed the menu which showed that people were offered a variety of healthy meals. The head chef told us that the menu was reviewed every four weeks with people’s input.

People were supported to access healthcare appointments as and when required and staff followed professional’s advice when supporting people with ongoing care needs. Records we reviewed showed that people had recently seen the GP, district nurses and a chiropodist.

People, profe

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 1 September 2018

The service was not always safe.

We were told that there were not sufficient staff available which left people at potential risk of harm.

All areas of the home were kept clean to minimise the risks of the spread of infection.

Staff had completed safeguarding adults training and were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse.

Medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by nurses and staff that were trained and competent to give medicines.

Lessons were learnt and improvements were made when things went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 September 2018

The service was effective. People�s needs and choices were assessed and effective systems were in place to deliver good care and treatment.

The service was acting in line with the requirements of the MCA.

Staff received training and supervision to give them the skills they needed to carry out their roles.

Staff were supported and given opportunities for additional training and personal development.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and their dietary needs were met.

The service worked within and across other healthcare services to deliver effective care.

The premises did not fully meet people�s needs. People were able to access different areas of the home freely.

People were supported to access health care services and other professionals as and when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that treated them with kindness, respect and compassion.

Staff had a good understanding of the people they cared for and supported them in decisions about how they liked to live their lives.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People were supported by staff that used person centred approaches to deliver the care and support they required.

People were supported by staff that recognised and responded to their changing needs.

People were supported to access the community and take part in activities within the home.

A complaints procedure was in place. Relatives, professionals and people told us they felt able to raise concerns with staff and/or the management.

Resident and relatives meetings took place which provided an opportunity for people to feedback and be involved in changes.

People were supported with end of life care. Preferences and choices were respected by staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 September 2018

The service was well led.

The management team promoted inclusion and encouraged an open working environment.

Staff received feedback from the management and felt recognised for their work.

Quality monitoring systems were in place which ensured the management had a good oversight of service delivery.

The home was led by a management team that was approachable and respected by the people, relatives and staff.

The home was continuously working to learn, improve and measure the delivery of care to people.