You are here

RNIB Kathleen Chambers House Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

This inspection took place on 9 and 10 August 2018 and was un-announced. This is the first inspection of this service since it was re-registered from RNIB Charity to RNIB in 2017.

Kathleen Chambers House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Kathleen Chambers House can accommodate up to 40 people. At the time of the inspection there were 34 people living at Kathleen Chambers House.

Older people with sensory impairments live at Kathleen House. The building had a range of aids and adaptations in place to assist people who had mobility difficulties. All bedrooms are for single occupancy. The service was staffed 24 hours a day and all areas were accessible to wheelchair users.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in place. The manager had been registered with CQC since April 2017. 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.

People and their relatives told us they had complete trust in the staff and felt safe and secure living at Kathleen Chambers House. Feedback from people included, "This is the best place for [Person] staff are so good." One person said, “Oh yes I always feel safe here”. Staff showed a good awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew who to inform if they saw or had an allegation of abuse reported to them. The registered manager was also aware of their responsibility to liaise with the local authority if safeguarding concerns were raised.

Care plans were detailed and contained risk assessments that documented areas of risk to people, such as nutrition and hydration or pressure areas. Systems were in place that showed people's medicines were managed consistently and safely by staff. The provider managed the building people lived in well, there was a full-time maintenance person who monitored health and safety and staff knew about the policies and procedures in place to manage health and safety within Kathleen Chambers House.

The provider employed enough staff to meet the needs of people and there was a robust recruitment and selection process in place where staff had been subject to criminal record checks before starting work at the service.

The provider had infection control arrangements in place and the home was clean, tidy and free from any unpleasant odour. Accident and incident reporting was robust. Staff knew the reporting process. Records showed that staff had taken proper action where necessary and made changes to reduce the risk of a re-occurrence of an incident.

The provider had suitable processes to assess people’s needs and choices. The manager told us, “I always do a home visit first, I like to get to know people and families.” Staff and volunteers had the skills, knowledge, and experience to support people. Supervision and appraisals were completed regularly to develop and motivate staff to improve on the care and support being delivered.

Staff supported people to eat, drink and keep a balanced diet. People told us that they had choices of food and that the quality of the food was good. People told us they had access to healthcare services such as GPs, Dentists, and Chiropodists. There was a range of specialised facilities and equipment to help people who were blind and partially sighted, these included talking notice boards, a lift, books, magnifiers, and signage that included Braille.

Consent to care and treatment was always sought in line with legislation and guidance. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People and visitors spoke highly of the staff. Comments included, "yes, they are lovely”. And “I find them kind”.

People's priva

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was safe

There were procedures in place to keep people safe, which staff understood.

Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place. There was enough staff to support people safely.

People�s risks were assessed and risk management guidance was completed.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was effective

People�s relatives felt they received care from competent staff.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported by staff who were competent and well supported

People had access to healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was caring

People were relaxed and happy in the service

People�s relatives spoke positively of the staff at the service.

Staff respected people�s choices and decision-making.

People and their relatives were involved in their care and support planning.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was responsive

People�s care records were detailed and easy to read.

People�s relatives felt staff were responsive.

Complaints had been acted upon when received.

Staff supported people to undertake activities of their choice.

There were links with the local community.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was well led

The provider had a clear vision to deliver care and support that promoted a positive culture.

The provider had identified developments required to improve the service

Everyone we spoke with knew who the registered manager was.