You are here

Corbett House Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 12 August 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Corbett House Nursing Home is a care home registered to support up to 35 people requiring general nursing care some of whom live with dementia and have physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection, 24 people were living there.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The provider had identified that when greeting visitors at the front door it was not possible to maintain a safe social distance, so an alternative entrance was being used.

¿ The provider had utilised an external building for visitors to wash their hands and put on their personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to entering the main building.

¿ The provider had a dedicated room to enable them to isolate people should this be required. No new admissions were accepted, should this room be occupied.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 1 October 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Corbett House is a care home that provides nursing and personal care for up to 35 people within one large adapted building. It provides care to people requiring general nursing care some of whom live with dementia and have physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection, 33 people were living at the home.

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

Staff practices to manage and administer people's covert [disguised in food and drinks] medicine required improving to ensure people’s needs and safety were fully promoted. Improvements were also required in infection control measures.

People were cared for by staff who knew how to keep them safe and protect them from abuse. The provider’s recruitment procedures were followed so people were not placed at avoidable harm by potential staff who were unsuitable to provide care. Sufficient, knowledgeable staff were available to meet people's needs. People told us when they needed assistance, staff responded promptly so people's safety needs were not compromised.

People's needs were assessed, and care was planned and provided to meet people's needs. Care was provided by staff with training and the general manager understood this needed to be provided on a regular basis. People received their medicines from trained staff whose competencies' were checked. Staff felt well supported in their roles.

People had a nutritious diet, and they enjoyed the food offered. Staff ensured people had enough to drink to meet their individual needs.

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.

Staff worked in close liaison with local health and social care services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they required.

People were complimentary about the caring nature of staff. Staff promoted people's right to make choices in every aspect of their lives and supported people’s levels of independence. People were supported with dignity and respect and end of life care was centred around each person being comfortable and pain free.

People's care and support met their needs and reflected their preferences. People had the opportunity to participate in fun and interesting things to do both on a one-to-one basis and in groups.

The general manager was committed to continual improvements within the service. This included improvements to the home environment and facilities to ensure these were suitable for people’s needs.

There was a positive and open culture which was led by the management team. A range of effective quality checks were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided so people continued to receive quality care.

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 20 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 9 March 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 March 2017. We arranged with the registered manager to return on the 10 March 2017 to finish our inspection.

The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for adults who require nursing care for a maximum of 25 people. There were 24 people living at the home on the day of the inspection.

At the last inspection on 15 and 17 March 2016 the service was rated as requires improvement, this inspection was made to see if improvements had been made. Since the last inspection the manager had registered with CQC. 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.’

People told us they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were able to demonstrate they had sufficient knowledge and skills to carry out their roles effectively and to ensure people who used the service were safe. People told us staff were available and responded when they needed care.

People were cared for by staff who were trained in recognising and understanding how to report potential abuse. Staff knew how to raise any concerns about people’s safety and shared information so that people’s safety needs were met. People were supported by staff to have their medicines when they needed them.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in regard to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff sought the consent of people before providing care and they could choose the support they received. People’s rights and freedoms were respected by staff. Staff understood people’s individual care needs and had received training so they would be able to care for people in the best way for them.

People using the service spoke positively about their care. People were supported to eat a balanced diet and with enough fluids to keep them healthy. People’s needs were met as there were good links with health and social care professionals. Where needed staff sought and acted upon the advice received.

People told us the staff were caring and respectful. People were relaxed around the staff supporting them told us they had developed good relationships with the staff. People said their privacy and dignity was maintained and our observations supported this.

People had expressed their views and gave feedback about the care so that their individual needs were met. People said staff listened to them and they felt confident they could raise any issues should the need arise.

Staff spoke highly of the management team and of the teamwork within the home. Staff were supported through supervisions, team meetings and training to provide care and support in line with people needs and wishes. The quality of the service provision and care was monitored by the provider and actions taken where required to maintain or improve the standards.

Inspection carried out on 15 March 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 15 and 17 March 2016.

The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care, and the treatment of disease, disorder or injury for a maximum of 25 people. There were 25 people living at the home on the day of the inspection.

Since the last inspection the registered manager had left the service and a new manager had been appointed but had not yet registered with CQC. 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.

People told us they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were able to demonstrate they had sufficient knowledge and skills to carry out their roles effectively and to ensure people who used the service were safe. People told us staff were available when they needed care.

People said they would like more activities as there was little to do and our observations supported this. We recommend that the service seek advice and guidance from a reputable source and based on current best practice about providing meaningful activities for people with dementia.

People were cared for by staff who were trained in recognising and understanding how to report potential abuse. Staff knew how to raise any concerns about people’s safety and shared information so that people’s safety needs were met. People were supported by staff to have their medicines when they needed them.

The deputy manager was aware of their responsibilities in regard to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). However records showed DoL applications had not been reviewed to ensure that they reflected current information. People told us that staff sought their consent before providing care and they could choose the support they received.

People’s nutritional needs were met but people felt the food they received could be improved. People told us that although there was choice, meals could be repetitive and the quality could be improved. People were supported with drinks throughout the day.

People were supported to access health care professionals and staff responded to the advice received in providing care to people.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment and were encouraged to express their views and give feedback on the support they received. People said staff listened to them and they felt confident they could raise any issues should the need arise.

Staff said they were supported by the management team and the provider and the manager had implemented recent improvements. There were systems in place to check and improve the quality of the service provided and take actions where required. Some improvements had been implemented but further actions were required to ensure the changes were made in a timely way.

Inspection carried out on 14 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on the people we spoke with who used the service, the staff who supported them and from looking at records. At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe with the staff that cared for them. There were procedures in place to keep people safe. Staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards which applies to care homes. The provider had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People told us that their visitors were able to see them in private and that visiting times were flexible. They also told us the home were accommodating and welcoming to visitors.

It was clear from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people�s care and support needs and that they knew them well.

The provider was updating the care records to ensure they were person centred and reflected their care needs in detail. We found that only some of the care plans had been updated. The provider told us that they were providing time to the manager to enable them to complete this.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with three people who used the service and two relatives. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. What people told us was positive, one person said; �Yes, its ok�. Another person said; "Very good staff".

People were supported by staff who demonstrated a clear understanding of their needs. When we spoke with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

In the care records we looked at people�s preferences and interests and found that care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes. We saw that the care people received reflected what we read in their care records.

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff on duty. For example we saw notices on people�s bedroom doors to knock before entering as people were receiving personal care and we saw that staff respected this.

Is the service responsive?

The provider was responsive to people�s needs. We saw examples where people were supported to attend hospital appointments when they were required.

People completed a range of activities within the service. People told us they were supported by staff with activities that they enjoyed.

Is the service well-led?

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They told us the manager listened to them.

The provider told us that they had recently sent out questionnaires to relatives. The provider told us that questionnaires were being written to send to people who lived in the home and the staff that worked there. This meant that the provider was taking appropriate steps to gather people�s views of the running the home.

The provider had some assessing and monitoring audits in place which would identify the welfare and safety of people who used the service. The provider may wish to note that we found there were no systems in place that analysed the incidents or accidents to assess whether there had been any trends or concerns that required action. We found no evidence that the provider had learnt from any incidents that had occurred.

Inspection carried out on 18 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spent time at the home watching to see how staff supported people, and talked with people about life at Corbett House. During our inspection we spoke with four people who lived at the home and after our inspection we spoke with three relatives. We also looked at records, and spoke with four staff and the provider.

People were positive about life at the home. One person said: �They (the staff) do the best they can. They (the staff) are such a cheerful lot of girls.� One family member told us: �She seems to be a lot more settled there (Corbett House) than she was at home. They (the staff) seem quite good.�

Throughout our inspection we observed positive interactions between people who lived at the home and staff. The staff we spoke with told us about the personalised care that they provided to people. This included how staff helped people to make simple everyday decisions.

We found that people who lived at the home did not always receive appropriate stimulation to meet their diverse needs. During our inspection we saw no meaningful activities taking place or evidence of on-going planned entertainment.

We observed that one member of staff who supported one person who lived at the home to move between a wheelchair and a chair used inappropriate techniques. This practice can put people at risk of harm.

We observed how people who lived at the home were supported to take their medicines in the morning. We saw that some improvements were needed. For example to ensure that staff were not disturbed during the medicine round and the handling of medicines did not place people at risk from cross infections.

We found that staff were recruited in a safe way and correct checks were carried out to ensure their suitability to care for people.

The provider had responsive systems in place to monitor and review people�s experiences and complaints. Family members that we spoke with told us that if they were not happy with the care and support their relation received they would tell the provider or staff.