You are here

Ford Place Nursing Home Outstanding

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Outstanding

Updated 28 February 2018

This was the first inspection to the service since a change in registration in November 2016 when Stow Healthcare purchased the home. The inspection was unannounced and carried out on 28 November 2017. We inspected all the key questions.

Ford Place 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. The care home accommodates up to 49 people in one adapted building. The building has both downstairs and upstairs accommodation. The home in a prominent position in the town of Thetford, Norfolk and has created additional parking for the ease of visitors. The home is a listed building, which had been sensitively restored creating a spacious and airy environment.

The service has a registered manager who was a registered nurse. There was also a deputy manager who is a registered nurse and nurses working on each floor. 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.

At this inspection we met with one of the directors of the company who has been referred to as the provider throughout the report.

During our inspection, we found exceptional standards of care. A committed and well-trained group of staff who demonstrated the right values and attributes provided this.

Staff provided seamless care working together to ensure they met people’s needs. We observed kind, compassionate staff spending time with people and their families to ensure peoples well-being and offering support around their individual needs. People were able to retain their interests, routines, and staff fitted in around these. There was good stimulation for people and plenty of opportunities to stay connected to their pasts.

Staff encouraged people to retain their independence and up hold people’s dignity. End of life care was exceptional and demonstrated the value staff placed on people in their care.

People were consulted and their views and experiences shaped the service they were provided. Feedback was acted upon in a positive way which gave people confidence in the service they received. It was responsive to people’s individual needs and the needs of the wider service. The staff survey showed improving results as staff gained more confidence in the provider who was proactive and hands on.

There was documentation recording people's individual care needs and how staff should meet these. This helped to ensure they could continue with their preferred routines and have their choices and preferences met. Staff managed risks to people’s safety well because they identified risk and put plans in place to reduce them as far as possible. Staff monitored people’s health to ensure they did not develop preventable conditions like pressure ulcers.

The home supported people to have positive mental health by encouraging people to stay active and socialise with others. There were planned and spontaneous activities, which took into account people’s individual interests and hobbies. Activities were provided every day of the week and helped prevent social isolation.

Families were involved in the care of a loved one and kept up to date by staff about their well- being. Community engagement was important and the home did a lot of intergenerational engagement between old and young recognising the benefits and potential of doing so. The home reflected the values of an extended family.

Complaints where received were viewed as providing an opportunity to get things right and the staff responded to complaints in a timely constructive way. Outside the process, there were regular opportunities for people and their families to discuss any aspects of their ca

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was safe.

Staff protected people from abuse as far as reasonably practicable because staff had received the necessary training Staff took steps to manage risk and reduce the occurrence of avoidable harm.

There were processes and systems in place to assess and reduce risk and ensure the premises and equipment were safe. Accidents/ incidents resulted in an investigation to help ensure all the necessary actions had been undertaken.

People received their medicines as intended by trained, competent staff.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people�s assessed needs and the service was well- planned to help ensure this was always the case. Staff had the necessary competencies and skills to meet people�s needs.

Staff recruitment was robust and helped ensure only suitable staff were employed.

The service was hygienic and there were robust practices in place to reduce the spread of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was effective.

The service was current and kept up to date with current legislation, guidance and best practice. It worked with other professionals to help ensure people received seamless care.

Staff had a robust induction and the necessary training and support they needed to work effectively.

Staff monitored people�s weight to ensure they did not experience unintentional weight loss and remained sufficiently nourished and hydrated.

People were encouraged to eat and live well and take exercise and participate with other people using the service to reduce the risk of social isolation.

Staff monitored people�s health and people were encouraged to see relevant health care professionals as required. The service worked with health and social professionals and the wider community. This helped ensure people had their needs met as holistically as possible.

The service complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2015. Staff asked people for their preferences and provided care according to peoples wishes. Where people were unable to make informed decisions staff consulted with people as widely as possible to ensure decisions were reached in the person�s best interest. .

The premises were fit for purpose and created a warm and comfortable environment for people to live in.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was caring.

Staff encouraged people to stay mentally active and physically well. Staff were caring and enhanced people�s well-being by providing timely and responsive care and support.

Staff upheld people�s dignity and personhood by knowing people�s preferences and preferred routines. Staff gave people time to respond and were inclusive in their approach. They encouraged people to develop friendships and keep in touch with their family and the local community

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was very responsive.

Staff knew people�s individual needs and routines and provided exceptional care according to their preferences and needs.

This was documented and provided a contemporaneous record of how the person�s needs had been met in relation to their physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing.

Activities were organised and provided throughout the week and people given opportunities to follow their own interests and hobbies. This helped to alleviate social isolation and encouraged people to remain independent and active.

Feedback about the service was acted upon and complaints were seen as an opportunity to get things right and improve the service.

Well-led

Outstanding

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was very well -led.

People received a consistent, well-planned service.

The manager provided strong leadership and the home had a strong ethos and caring values. Staff received the necessary training to support and develop their skills.

Good quality assurance systems underpinned this service. They helped ensure they provided a responsive service and were aware of the needs of people, their families and the service as a whole.

The service was progressive and constantly moving forward to be the best it could be. People received an outstanding, reliable service that they were confident with.

There were systems including audits to help ensure the service was safe for people to use and activities were performed safely