You are here

Inwood House Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 August 2014
Date of Publication: 5 September 2014
Inspection Report published 05 September 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 7 August 2014

During a routine inspection

One inspector visited the home and answered our five questions, is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with eight people using the service and receiving written comments from eight people using the service. We spoke with five staff, the manager and a director of the home. We reviewed six care plans and other relevant records.

Is the service safe?

Care plans instructed staff how to meet people�s needs in a way which did not always clearly describe how to minimise risks for the individual. They were not always detailed enough to ensure staff cared for people in the safest way.

We found that unexplained injuries or bruising were not fully investigated and it was not clear what action if any had been taken to minimise the risk of recurrence.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that the home understood when a DoLS referral should be made. The home had not made any DoLS referrals in 2014.

We found that medication was administered and recorded in a way which kept people as safe as possible. Staff were properly trained and their competence to administer medicines was checked.

The environment was suitably designed and well maintained. There were hand rails fitted throughout the building and enough space for people to use wheelchairs and other walking aids. Alarm bells were always available within people�s reach.

The home had enough trained staff to enable them to work safely with the people who lived in the home. People told us: ��bells are always answered quickly�� and ��if anything goes wrong the staff are there to help you.��

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff continually monitored the quality and safety of care offered to people.

Health and safety was taken seriously by the home and most of the appropriate safety checks had been completed. This reduced the risks to the people who lived in the home, staff and visitors.

People told us they felt very safe in the home. One person reflected the comments of everyone spoken with when they said: ��I feel very safe, nobody�s ever nasty or unpleasant to you and I love it here��.

Is the service effective?

People�s health and care needs were assessed with them, and/or their relatives, as appropriate. Care plans were detailed and clearly identified people�s needs and how they should be met. They were reviewed regularly and changes were made to meet people�s changing needs. We saw that staff gave support as described in individuals� care plans.

We observed staff meeting people�s needs. Daily notes were detailed and of good quality, they described how staff met people�s needs effectively.

The home offered people a comfortable environment in which to live.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind, caring and patient staff. We saw that care staff were attentive, encouraging and positive. Staff communicated with people and encouraged interactions between people using the service. People described staff as: ��good company��.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. Care plans were individualised and person-centred. We saw that people were always treated with respect and dignity by the staff team. We saw that people�s choices and preferences were respected and their independence was supported.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that health care was sought in a timely way and the home co-operated with other health care professionals to make sure their healthcare needs were met. However, records of continued healthcare and appointments were not always properly recorded. It was not always possible to see if on-going healthcare was provided by the home.

The home had made changes and improvements as a result of ideas and discussions with people who lived in the home and their relatives.

We saw that the people were confident to approach any of the staff team or the manager if they had any concerns about their care. One person said: ��I could talk to anyone, I trust them all��.

The home demonstrated that they learnt from accident and falls investigations which they completed.

Is the service well led?

We saw that staff were well trained and meeting the needs of people was a priority of the staff team. We saw that communication amongst the staff team was good. Staff told us they all felt part of a strong staff team, whatever their role. They told us they felt: ��valued�� and felt their views were listened to.

The service had a quality assurance system which was generally effective. We saw records which showed that identified shortfalls and ideas people put forward were addressed. As a result the quality of the service was being maintained or improved.