• Care Home
  • Care home

Aucklands Care

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

2 Ken Road, Southbourne, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH6 3ET (01202) 427166

Provided and run by:
Mrs Lynn Georgina Hart

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile
Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at Aucklands Care. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

All Inspections

5 January 2018

During a routine inspection

Auckland Rest Home is a care home service that does not provide nursing care. 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 the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to accommodate up to ten people and provides a specialist service for mainly older people living with dementia. The accommodation is domestic in scale and provides a homely environment for people, with access to a garden area.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 5 and 8 January 2018. At the time of this inspection there were eight people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post who has worked at the home for many years. 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.

Aucklands Care provides a small, highly effective service for people living with dementia. Part of the home’s success lay in the provider ensuring staff were trained to a high standard using a recognised dementia care training package that understands people's behaviours, including the way they communicate, as having meaning.

The provider also maintained staffing levels that allowed staff to devote time with people and provided good leadership that allowed this model of care to be delivered effectively. Staff had also been provided with specialist training in other conditions affected by people such as epilepsy and mental health to ensure people’s needs were met. The staff team were therefore able to deliver care in line with best practice.

Local commissioners viewed the home as a valuable resource as the service had provided placements with good outcomes for people whose care needs could not be met in other services.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate in their interactions with people and very knowledgeable about their histories likes and dislikes. They were able to diffuse situations and divert people to better mood states through their interactions because of this very person centred approach to working with people.

People were kept safe as the provider had taken appropriate steps and had good systems in place to protect people. Staff had received training in safeguarding and people’s needs had been assessed with plans to mitigate risks that may be involved in the delivery of care. The premises had also been assessed and made as safe as possible for people. Accidents and incidents were recorded, monitored and action taken if necessary.

Staff were recruited in line with robust policies and all the necessary checks had been carried out.

There were good systems to make sure medicines were administered as prescribed.

People had an up to date comprehensive care plans in place so that staff could refer to these and deliver consistent care. The care we observed was consistent with people’s plans and they received a highly personalised service.

The service was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to make decisions. Where they did not have capacity for specific decisions, the home followed the requirements and principles of the MCA in arriving at ‘best interest’ decisions on their behalf. There were also robust systems to make sure that people were only deprived of their liberty in accordance with the Act, and that any conditions of that deprivation be applied.

Staff were supported though indirect and formal supervision as well as having access to on call managers. This is ensured staff were motivated, trained to a high standard and able to work effectively with people living at the home.

The home was highly effective in working collaboratively with health services and social care services in meeting people’s health needs.

The premises had been adapted with signage to facilitate better care of people living with dementia. The home was clean, in good decorative repair and provided a ‘homely’ environment. People were encouraged as far as possible to be involved in decoration of the home.

People were provided with a good standard of food with their having choice of what they wanted to eat and their individual needs catered for.

Activities and meaningful occupation were seen as being paramount in meeting the challenging needs of the people accommodated. Activities were therefore personalised to people’s interests.

Complaints were responded to and the procedure was well publicised.

Wishes and preferences for end of life care needs were assessed and plans put in place to meet these. Staff were trained in end of life care and one of the senior staff had delegated role as a champion.

The management team provided leadership and promoted a positive open culture.

There were auditing and monitoring systems being followed seeking overall improvement.

14 and 15 July 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection visit took place on 14 and 15 July 2015 and was unannounced.

Auckland Rest Home is a care home service without nursing. The home is registered to accommodate up to ten people. There is one lounge, a dining room and a garden for people to enjoy.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 the last inspection on 9 July 2013 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

There were nine people living in the home at the time of our inspection. People who lived at the home, relatives and friends told us people felt safe and secure with staff to support them. People’s care and support needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Care records contained details of people’s preferences, interests, likes and dislikes.

Staffing levels and the skills mix of staff were sufficient to meet the needs of people and keep them safe. The recruitment of staff had been undertaken through a thorough process. All checks that were required had been completed prior to staff commencing work.

Medicine was dispensed and administered in a safe manner. The staff member responsible for administering medication dealt with one person at a time to minimise risks associated with this process. We discussed training and found any staff responsible for administering medicines had received formal medication training to ensure they were confident and competent to give medication to people.

People were asked for their consent before care was provided. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had the knowledge, skills and experience to carry out their role. People told us there were always staff available to help them when needed. Relatives of people who used the service told us that they visited the home at different times and on different days, and the staff always made them feel welcome. They said that staff were caring and treated people with respect, and that their relative was always comfortable and looked well cared for.

Staff were provided with relevant induction training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. Staff understood their role and what was expected of them. They were happy in their work, motivated and had confidence in the way the service was managed.

People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied and nutritious diet was provided to people. This into account their dietary needs and preferences so that their health was promoted and choices respected.

People and relatives told us they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and felt confident they would be listened to.

People participated in a range of daily activities both in and outside of the home that were meaningful and promoted independence.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.

People using the service and their relatives had been asked their opinion via surveys, the results of these were in the process of being audited to identify any areas for improvement.

9 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with the manager, three people living at the home and three members of the staff team. There were eight people living at Auckland Rest Home during our inspection.

People were positive about their experience of living at the home. No one we spoke with had any complaints or concerns about how the home was run and managed.

People told us that they had good relationships with the staff, who they described as, "Good and caring". They told us that the home was kept clean and warm. People said there were activities to keep them occupied.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider had suitable quality assurance procedures in place to manage the health and welfare of people living in the home. People were able to comment on the service provided.