Background to this inspection
Updated
6 June 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection was completed by one adult social care inspector.
Service and service type:
The service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulated both the premises and the care provided; both were looked at during this inspection.
The home accommodates 32 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection, 30 people were living in the home.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. However, the registered manager was not available during the inspection. The service also had a management team comprising a manager, training and professional development manager and a business manager. This manager is referred to as ‘the manager’ throughout the report.
Notice of inspection:
This was an unannounced inspection on the first day; the second day was announced.
What we did:
Providers are required to send us key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. Before our inspection we looked at the Provider Information Return (PIR) and reviewed all of the information we held about the home, including notifications of incidents that the provider had sent us.
We spoke with six people, three relatives, staff and healthcare professionals to help form our judgements. We observed the care and support provided and the interaction between staff and people. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
We spoke with the manager, the training and development manager, the business manager, four staff members and two cooks. We looked at the following records:
• three people’s care records and associated documents
• four staff files
• previous inspection reports
• staff rotas
• staff training and supervision records
• health and safety paperwork
• accident and incident records
• statement of purpose
• complaints and compliments
• minutes from staff meetings
• a selection of the provider’s policies
• quality audits
• fire risk assessments
• infection control records.
After the inspection, we contacted another healthcare professional for their views of the service. We also contacted the local authority, who gave us their last quality review of the service.
Updated
6 June 2019
About the service:
SS Philip and James Retirement Home is a residential care home that was providing personal and nursing care to 30 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.
SS Philip and James Retirement Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
SS Philip and James Retirement Home accommodates 32 people across three adapted houses which are interlinked as one building, each of which has separate adapted facilities.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ People and relatives were full of praise for the excellent service they received. Relatives said, “We’re over the moon with it”, “It’s amazing” and, “We’re delighted.”
¿ Staff provided person-centred support by listening to people and engaging them at every opportunity. Staff were very kind and caring. People told us, “I’m so lucky to be here” and, “You just don’t get any better.”
¿ One healthcare professional told us the service was, “An incredible home…very responsive.”
¿ Relatives were highly complimentary about the support they and their loved ones received when their loved ones were at the end of their lives. They said the service was outstanding and the kindness and compassion were exceptional.
¿ Staff provided pamper sessions such as bubble baths, massages and alternative therapies for people.
¿ Although the registered manager ran a well organised service, the providers audits had not identified the manager had not notified CQC when one Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application had been authorised. During the inspection we spoke with the manager to ensure CQC was notified in these cases.
¿ The provider sought the views of people’s relatives and took opportunities to improve the service. Staff were supervised, supported and clear about what was expected of them. Audits and checks were carried out, so any problem could be identified and rectified.
¿ People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
¿ Staff were trained and supported to be skilled and efficient in their roles. They were very happy about the level of training and support they received and showed competence when supporting people.
¿ The provider had processes in place for recruitment, staffing levels, medicines management, infection control and upkeep of the premises which protected people from unsafe situations and harm.
¿ Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and discrimination. They knew to report any concerns and ensure action was taken. The manager worked with the local authority safeguarding adults team to protect people.
¿ The premises provided people with a variety of spaces for their use with relevant facilities to meet their needs. Bedrooms were very individual and age and gender appropriate.
¿ Support plans were detailed and reviewed with the person when possible, staff who supported the person and family members. Staff looked to identify best practise and used this to people’s benefit. Staff worked with and took advice from healthcare professionals. People’s health care needs were met.
¿ People had a variety of internal activities, such as games and entertainers which they enjoyed on a regular basis. Staff promoted people’s dignity and privacy.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated Good (26 September 2016). At this inspection, the overall rating remains Good.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection to confirm that this service remained Good.