Archived: Stretton Hall Nursing Home

Stretton Hall Nursing Home provides accommodation and nursing or personal care for up to 50 people. On the day of our inspection, 40 people were receiving services, some of whom were living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The management team did not always notify of us key events which occurred at Stretton Hall Nursing Home.

When a concern of potential abuse or ill-treatment was raised with the management team they delayed sharing this information with partnership agencies.

The management team and provider had systems in place to identify improvements and drive good care. However, these were not always effective as they failed to identify the issues we found at this inspection.

Staff members followed effective infection prevention and control procedures when supporting people. Staff members had access to, and used, appropriate personal protection equipment.

The provider had assessed the risks to people associated with their care and support. Staff members were knowledgeable about these risks and knew what to do to minimise the potential for harm to people.

People received safe support with their medicines by trained and competent staff members.

Staff members were aware of the necessary actions they should take in the event of an emergency.

The provider supported staff in providing effective care for people through person-centred care planning, training and one-to-one supervision.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems at Stretton Hall Nursing Home supported this practice.

People had access to additional healthcare services when required.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet by a staff team which knew their individual preferences.

People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had developed positive relationships.

People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like age, gender and disability.

People were provided with information in a way they could understand. The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or those close to them.

The provider, and management team, had good links with the local communities within which people lived.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was ‘Good’ (published 19 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to the providers failure to safeguard people from abuse or improper treatment and failure to notify the care quality commission of all incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who use their service.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

Staff had received training in how to protect people from abuse, discrimination and avoidable harm. The risks to people had been assessed, recorded and plans implemented to manage these. Staffing levels ensured people's needs could be met safely. People's medicines were handled and administered safely by competent staff.

Staff received effective induction, training and supervision to support them in performing their roles and responsibilities. People's rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were understood and protected. People had enough to eat and drink and their nutritional needs were assessed and managed. Staff supported people to access healthcare services as needed.

Staff adopted a caring and compassionate approach to their work. People's involvement in decisions that affected them was encouraged. People's rights to privacy and dignity were promoted.

People and their relatives contributed to care planning and felt their views were listened to. They knew how to raise complaints and concerns, and felt comfortable doing so.

The management team promoted an open and inclusive culture within the service. People and their relatives felt the home was well managed. Staff felt well supported and were clear what was expected of them. The provider carried out quality assurance activities to assess and address the quality of the service people received.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Not all the people we met were able to speak with us about the care they received and their experience of living in the home. Therefore we observed how staff interacted and supported people. This helped us to make a judgement on how their needs were being met.

We reviewed four care plans these were personalised and covered personal likes and dislikes.

There was a comprehensive care planning system in place which detailed the needs of people who used the service and how they would be met. The system was supported by a series of risk assessments. People who used the service and their representatives told us they were able to contribute to their care plans, these reflected their personal preferences. Staff asked people for their consent before offering them support.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. This was because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify potential abuse and acted appropriately.

There were suitable arrangements in place which ensured the safe management of medicines.

We found that there were good quality assurance systems in place and opportunities for people to tell the provider what they thought about the service and how it could be improved.