You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

This inspection took place on 22 and 31 August 2017. The first day of our visit was unannounced.

The Helen Ley Care Centre provides nursing care for a maximum of 37 people. At the time of our visit there were 28 people living in the home and four people on respite care.

A registered manager was 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.

This service was last inspected in March 2015 when we identified some concerns around the safe management of medicines. We returned in October 2015 and found improvements had been made. We gave this service an overall rating of good.

People felt safe living at The Helen Ley Care Centre because staff knew them well and how to care for them safely. There were enough nursing and care staff to provide effective care in a safe way. However, although staff tried to respond to people's requests in a timely manner, due to the high levels of dependency in the home, sometimes people had to wait for assistance.

Risks associated with people's care were identified and staff were knowledgeable about those risks and how to manage them. Staff completed training in safeguarding and understood their responsibility to report any concerns they had about people’s health or wellbeing.

People were confident their health needs were met and spoke positively of the multi-disciplinary approach and collaborative working with other healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals shared their knowledge and provided training so staff could be responsive to people’s individual needs. People received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.

The provider had effective systems to ensure care staff received training and support that equipped them with the necessary skills and competency to meet people’s complex care needs. Nursing staff received training to ensure they followed best practice and their clinical skills remained up to date.

Staff demonstrated a good working knowledge of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us they made their own decisions about their day-to-day care and support, and said staff respected their right to decide.

People spoke about the caring attitude of staff in very positive terms, especially the emotional support they received from staff when they were feeling low or anxious. There was a very friendly and inclusive atmosphere within the home with people engaging with each other and staff in a relaxed and comfortable manner. Staff supported people to maintain their dignity and respected their privacy and confidentiality.

Staff worked closely with the dietician and speech and language therapy team to ensure they knew about people’s nutritional preferences, allergies and special dietary requirements. Meal times were a social occasion and people were able to choose what they wanted to eat.

Before people moved to the home, there was a multi-disciplinary assessment to ensure the service could meet each person’s individual and specific needs. Staff provided appropriate care and were responsive to changes in people’s needs. However, inconsistent completion of records did not always evidence that people had received the care as set out in their care plan.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and were motivated to provide people with high quality care. They spoke highly of the registered manager and the support they received, especially at challenging times.

People and their relatives had the opportunity to be involved in decisions about their care and the running of the service. They were invited to care reviews and meetings and encouraged to complete quality assurance questionnaires. People and their family members knew how to mak

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service remains good.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service remains good.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service remains good.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was mostly responsive.

Staff were not always able to respond in a timely way to people's requests for assistance. Care plans were developed from a detailed assessment prior to people moving to the home. However, records did not demonstrate people always received care in accordance with their care plans. People and their family members knew how to make a complaint if they wished to do so.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service remains good.