Kepplegate House

Updated 9 September 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

This inspection took place on 27 September 2020 and was announced. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

Updated 9 September 2020

Kepplegate House is a two-storey care home and domiciliary care service located in the village of Preesall. The home is within close proximity to shops and local amenities. The service has a minibus which is used to transport people to events and appointments. Accommodation is provided over two floors, with a stair lift providing access to the first floor. There is a large lounge with dining room and two small conservatories. There are garden areas with seating for people to use during the summer months. Car parking is available at the home. At the time of our inspection visit there were 16 who lived at the home and 26 people supported in their own homes by the domiciliary care service.

At the last inspection carried out on the 02, 03 and 10 February 2016 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

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.

People who lived at the home told us they were happy, felt safe and were treated with kindness at all times. People supported by the domiciliary care service told us staff who visited them were reliable, polite, friendly and caring. Comments received included, “I cannot say anything bad about the staff.” And, “I feel perfectly safe here. The staff are very kind.” Also, “You could set your clock by my carers. They would let me know if they had been held up for some reason but it’s never happened.”

The service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. People told us they received their medicines at times they needed them.

We saw there was an emphasis on promoting dignity, respect and independence for people supported by both services. They told us they were treated as individuals and received person centred care.

We looked around the care home building and found it had been maintained, was clean and hygienic and a safe place to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.

The service had safe infection control procedures in place. People who lived at the home told us they were happy with the standard of hygiene in place.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People’s care and support had been planned with them. They told us they had been consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered.

Care plans were organised and had identified care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received.

People told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

People were supported to have access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met.

People told us staff were caring towards them. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of high standards of care to give people meaningful lives.

The service had information with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by people they supported.

People told us staff who supported them treated them with respect and dignity.

People who lived at the home told us they enjoyed a variety of activities which were organised for their entertainment.

The service used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits, resident meetings and satisfaction surveys to seek their views about the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below