You are here

We are carrying out checks at Perton Manor. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

This inspection visit took place on 31 October 2017 and was unannounced. The service was registered to provide accommodation for up to 50 people. At the time of our inspection, 50 people were using the service. Perton Manor is divided into two wings; the east wing accommodates people with complex mental health needs, the west wing accommodates people who are living with dementia and may have physical care needs and/or nursing needs. On our previous inspection on 30 March 2016 we rated the service as Good in all areas. On this inspection the service remains Good overall although Requires Improvement within our question, ‘Is this service effective?’

There was a registered manager in post. 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 made everyday decisions about their care and staff helped them to understand the information they needed to make. However where people were unable to make decisions, how their capacity was assessed was not always clear and some decisions were being made by relatives when the person may have been able to make these decisions themselves. People had meals and drinks served using a dementia range crockery made from plastic. Although other ranges were available, people were not offered a choice of using standard crockery and cutlery.

People felt safe and where risks associated with their health and wellbeing had been identified, there were plans to manage those risks. Where restrictions to people’s liberty had been identified, an application to make this lawful had been made. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report any abuse. People received the right medicines at the right time and medicines were handled and managed safely.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to provide care for people and knew people well. People had a choice of what to eat and drink and specialist individual diets were catered for. The staff liaised with health care professionals to ensure that people received the specialist care they needed. People’s support plans reflected the care and support they needed and included advice from external professionals.

People had developed respectful relationships with the staff who were kind and caring in their approach. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and they were supported to be as independent as possible. People were supported to maintain relationships with people that were important to them and visitors were welcomed at the home.

People were able to take part in meaningful activities. The staff had thought of different ways people could express themselves and be involved in activities in the home and when out. People were encouraged to complain or raise concerns, and these were resolved to ensure improvements within the service.

There was strong leadership which promoted an open culture and staff understood their roles and responsibilities which helped the home to run smoothly. People could share their views about the service and this was used to understand what people liked and where improvements were needed.

The registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained. They understood the requirements of their registration with us and kept us informed us important events that happened at the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and how to report their concerns. People’s risks were assessed and there were individual management plans in place to keep people safe. There were sufficient numbers of suitably recruited staff to meet people’s needs. People’s prescribed medicines were managed and administered safely.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was not always effective.

People were supported to make decisions for themselves. However the capacity assessments did not relate to specific decisions that needed to be made. People’s dignity was not always respected at meal times as everyone ate from a dementia range crockery made from plastic and were not provided with a choice. Staff knew how to support people and ensured that their health and wellbeing was maintained. People were involved in ensuring that they had their nutritional needs met.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was caring.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and people were supported in a kind, patient and respectful manner. Staff demonstrated a genuine interest in people and valued their company. Relatives felt supported by staff and could visit whenever they wanted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care which had been discussed and planned with them. People’s interests and life histories had been recorded so that staff could understand people’s needs and personalise people’s care. People had a range of activities they could be involved with that had been planned according to their interests. People’s views were listened to and acted upon by staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was well led.

There was an effective quality assurance system in place and the registered manager was proactive in seeking out ways to improve. Staff were supported to improve their practice across a range of areas and understood their roles and responsibilities.