You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Felbury House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 December 2018

This inspection took place on 5 September 2018 and was unannounced.

Felbury 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.

The home can accommodate a maximum of 30 older people. There were 27 people living at the home at the time of our inspection. The home is operated by Grey's Residential Homes Ltd. The provider also operates a care home for a maximum of 24 older people in Woking, Surrey.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. The registered manager had been appointed since our last inspection and completed their registration with CQC in February 2018. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 3 August 2017, we found the provider was breaching regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, person-centred care, consent and governance. People’s care was not always provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We served a warning notice about this issue. Suitable steps were not always taken to minimise the risks involved in people’s care. Medicines were not always stored in a safe environment and there was not enough guidance for staff about some people’s medicines. Some people had needs that were not reflected in their care plans, which meant staff did not have guidance to follow about how to meet these needs. The provider's quality monitoring systems were not effective in identifying shortfalls. After the inspection, the provider sent us an action plan telling us how they planned to make improvements.

At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made in all these areas. People’s care was provided in a safe way that was responsive to their needs. Medicines were managed safely and people’s rights under the MCA were respected. Effective quality monitoring systems had been developed, which had improved the management oversight of the service.

The provider, registered manager and staff had worked together to achieve these improvements, which had resulted in tangible benefits for people. For example, the number of falls had significantly reduced due to the falls prevention measures implemented at the home. These included exercises to improve balance and mobility and considering how people’s medicines may affect their risk of falls.

The provider, registered manager and staff had all attended training in the MCA to ensure they understood its principles and application. The tools used to assess people’s capacity had improved, which meant they were effective in identifying when people may need support to make decisions. People’s care plans were personalised and reflected all aspects of their care. Staff had clear guidance to follow about how to provide the care and support people needed.

The areas in which the home performed well at the last inspection continued to be its strengths. People and relatives praised the caring nature of staff, including when people neared the end of their lives. Many people and their relatives highlighted the welcoming, family atmosphere as an aspect of the home that they valued highly. People had developed positive relationships with the staff who cared for them and enjoyed their company. Many staff had worked at the home for some years and knew the people they cared for and their relatives well. Friends and families were encouraged to be involved in the life of the home

The provider and registered manager formed a strong leadership team and provided good support to staff. Staff were committed to providing high quality c

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was safe.

Falls had been reduced through the implementation of falls prevention measures.

Medicines were managed safely.

Staff were always available when people needed them.

People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

People would continue to receive the care they needed in the event of an emergency.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was effective.

People’s care was provided in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff had the training and support they needed to carry out their roles.

People enjoyed the food provided and their views were considered when menus were planned.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and any specific dietary needs met.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored and they were supported to access medical treatment if they needed it.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and compassionate in their approach.

People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them.

The home had a friendly atmosphere that people valued highly.

Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People’s needs were reflected in their care plans and staff had guidance to follow about how to meet these needs.

People had access to a wide range of activities and outings.

People had opportunities to be involved in their local community and were protected from the risk of social isolation.

Complaints were investigated and used to improve the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a strong leadership team which provided good support to staff.

Effective quality monitoring systems had been implemented, which had improved the management oversight of the service.

Feedback from people and their relatives was encouraged and acted upon.

Staff worked well as a team and had developed effective working relationships with other healthcare professionals.