Aucklands Care

About the service

Aucklands Care is a residential care home providing personal care to 8 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 10 people, the first floor is accessible by a stair lift.

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

Right Support:

The service gave people care and support in a safe environment. The service supported people to have choice, control and independence. People were able to pursue their chosen interests without being at risk of harm. For example, staffing levels were adjusted to enable people the opportunity to leave the building and visit local amenities when they wished. Staff communicated with people in ways that met their needs. Staff supported people with their medicines to achieve the best possible health outcome.

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 in the service supported this practice.

Right Care:

People could communicate with staff and understand information given to them because staff supported them consistently and, understood their individual communication needs. Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. The service worked with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. People's care, treatment and support plans reflected their range of needs, and this promoted positive wellbeing and enjoyment of life.

Right Culture:

People and their relatives described the staff as, “Extremely caring” and told us, “The registered manager here watches over things to keep me safe”.

People and those important to them, were involved in planning their care. The provider evaluated the quality of support provided to people, involving the person, their families and other professionals as appropriate. The management of the home valued and acted upon people's views.

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 outstanding (published 12 March 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service remains outstanding. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Aucklands Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

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.

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.