Archived: St John's Care Home

We considered all the evidence we had gathered and used our inspection findings to answer the five questions we always ask;

• 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.

If you want to see the evidence supporting the summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to ensure people received their medication in a timely manner. One person told us, “They are good at bringing my medication on time.”

We spent time observing care and saw care staff treated people with kindness and respect. People told us they liked living at the home. People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. One person said, “There is always plenty of staff around.” They added, “The staff are very obliging.” During our visit we heard call bells ringing but they were always answered within a reasonable timeframe.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act( 2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted

Is the service effective?

Records showed people’s health needs were assessed when they moved into the service and at regular intervals while they remained there. Specialist dietary, mobility and skin care needs had been identified in the care plans when required.

We saw the provider worked in partnership with health care providers and involved them in people’s care when appropriate.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind, attentive care workers. We observed care in the upstairs lounge and saw care workers speaking to people in a soft voice and ensuring they had plenty to drink.

People’s preferences had been recorded. We looked at the recording around sleep patterns and getting up times and could see they fully described the care people liked to receive. We arrived early in the morning and could see only those people who liked to get up early had been supported to get washed and dressed.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they enjoyed the activities provided for them. One person told us, ““The activities co-ordinator makes it better. We do exercises and they sing. At present we are making pompoms and we also have bingo.”

We saw that where care workers identified concerns with people’s care they requested support from other health care professionals. A community nurse who was at the home during our inspection told us care workers always followed any instructions they left regarding people’s care.

Records showed the provider held regular meetings with people living at the home and their relatives. This allowed people to raise any concerns they had about their care. We saw staff meetings were also held to allow staff to raise concerns and to update them on the running of the home.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked in partnership with other organisations including the local authority and safeguarding teams to support care provision.

Records showed the manager ensured appropriate health and safety checks were completed on the premises.

The service had a quality assurance system which reviewed incidents, accidents, safeguarding and complaints on a monthly basis.

On arrival in the home we were informed by staff people who used the service had no or limited capacity to make informed decisons to speak with us. This was confirmed in their care plans. We therefore we did not speak to anyone who used the service but instead observed their care.

There was insufficient evidence to support why people had been washed and dressed before 7am in the morning.

Staffing levels had just been reappraised and staff had been informed at a recent staff meeting of the new levels. Dependency levels of people who used the service had been assessed on admission but there was no formal mechanism to ensure the provider was kept abreast of changes in people's needs.

Two people had been fully assessed prior to admission and steps taken by staff to monitor their care needs whilst at the home. Although information had been passed to the local safeguarding tea, this differed from that given to the Care Quality Commission.The safeguarding team of the local authority monitor and investigate any allegations of suspected abuse.

A relative told us, “Staff are always there to answer questions, I don’t see the care plan on a regular basis, but I see staff if I have any queries. I’ve signed lots of things since I’ve been here.”

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We saw care plans recorded people's preferred name and we heard staff calling people by their preferred name. People were dressed smartly. One person told us it was important to him that he was dressed smartly. We heard staff complemented people on their appearance after they had visited the hairdresser.

The home had recently been refurbished to a high standard. We saw the hallways had been decorated to catch people’s attention. For example, we saw there were hats and handbags for people to pick up. There were old fashion telephones, radios and a new copy of a newspaper from 1981.

We asked a relative if staff knew their mother’s care needs. They told us, “Very much so, I’m impressed by the amount of care she gets.” They also said, “We talk to the nurses all the while.”

Staff received appropriate training.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received. Records showed incidents, accidents and complaints, both verbal and written, were investigated.