Archived: Toray Pines Care Home

Updated 9 March 2018

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 registered persons continued to meet the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We used information the registered persons sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also examined other information we held about the service. This included notifications of incidents that the registered persons had sent us since our last inspection. These are events that happened in the service that the registered persons are required to tell us about. We also invited feedback from the commissioning bodies who contributed to purchasing some of the care provided in the service. We did this so that they could tell us their views about how well the service was meeting people’s needs and wishes.

We visited the service on 7 December 2017 and the inspection was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using this type of service.

During the inspection we spoke with 16 people who lived in the service and with two relatives. We also spoke with a floor manager, a senior member of care staff, four care staff and the activities manager. In addition, we met with the deputy manager, registered manager and the operations director. Furthermore, we spoke with the chief executive officer of the company who runs the service. We also observed care that was provided in communal areas and looked at the care records for 10 people who lived in the service. We also looked at records that related to how the service was managed including staffing, training and quality assurance.

In addition, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not speak with us.

After the inspection visit we spoke by telephone with a further three relatives.

Updated 9 March 2018

We inspected the service on 7 December 2017. The inspection was unannounced. Toray Pines Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation, nursing and 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.

Toray Pines Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for 52 people. The service can provide care for adults of all ages. It can also care for people who live with dementia and/or who have physical adaptive needs. There were 48 people living in the service at the time of our inspection visit all of whom were older people.

The service was run by a company who was the registered provider. 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. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

At the last inspection on 23 April 2015 the service was rated, ‘Good’.

At this inspection we found the service remained, ‘Good’.

There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. This included occasions when people became distressed and needed support in order to keep themselves and others around them safe. In addition, medicines were managed safely.

Suitable arrangements had been made to ensure that sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed in the service and background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. Furthermore, there were robust arrangements to prevent and control infection and lessons had been learnt when things had gone wrong.

Care staff had been supported to deliver care in line with current best practice guidance. People received the individual assistance they needed to enjoy their meals and they were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. In addition, suitable steps had been taken to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care when they used or moved between different services. People had been supported to live healthier lives by having suitable access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support. Furthermore, people had benefited from the accommodation being adapted, designed and decorated in a way that met their needs and expectations.

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

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. This included them having access to lay advocates if necessary. In addition, confidential information was kept private.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. As part of this people had been offered opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests. In addition, the registered manager recognised the importance of appropriately supporting people who chose gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender lifestyles. People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care. Furthermore, suitable provision had been made to support people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

There was a registered manager who promoted a positive culture in the service that was focused upon achieving good outcomes for people. They had also taken steps to enable the service to meet regulatory requirements. Care staff had been helped to understand their responsibilities to develop good team work and to speak out if they had any concerns. In addition, people and their relatives had been consulted about making improvements in the service. Furthermore, the registered persons had made a number of arrangements that were designed to enable the service to innovate and quality checks had been completed.

A number of measures were in place to promote the financial sustainability of the service. Furthermore, the registered persons were actively working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.