Archived: Templeman House

Updated 27 July 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 provider is meeting 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.

This inspection took place on 4 and 5 June 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out the inspection on both days.

The registered manager assisted us throughout the inspection as well as an Operational Manager for the company. During the inspection we met and spoke with most people living at the home; however, because most people were living with dementia and were not able to tell us about their experience of the home, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection, SOFI. This is a specific method of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also spent much of the inspection within communal areas so that we could observe interactions between the staff and people. We spoke with seven members of staff, five visiting relatives, a visiting health professional and, following the inspection, commissioners of the service.

We looked in detail at the care plans and assessments relating to three people and a sample of other documents relating to the care of people at Templeman House. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service including; staffing rotas, incident and accident records, training records, meeting minutes, premises maintenance records and medication administration records.

Before the inspection, the registered manager completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We reviewed the notifications we had been sent from the service since we carried out our last inspection. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

Updated 27 July 2018

Templeman House is a residential care home for older people, the majority of whom were living with dementia. The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 41 people on three floors; nursing care is not provided. The main communal areas are situated on the ground floor but on each of the other two floors there were lounge areas. At the time of this inspection there were 30 people accommodated.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. Progress was being made towards outstanding achievement. 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.

The registered manager had worked at the service 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.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion, and their privacy and dignity was upheld.

People were protected from neglect and abuse. Risks were assessed and people were supported to stay safe with the least possible restriction on their freedom. Pre-employment checks were followed to ensure candidates were suitable to work in a care setting.

People’s physical, mental health and social needs were assessed holistically, and care and support was planned and delivered in a personalised way to meet those needs.

People, and where appropriate their families, were involved in decisions about their care and support. The registered manager and staff kept abreast of good practice through attending training and discussing developments in good practice at team meetings and during supervision. Staff had training in equality, diversity and human rights to help them challenge and avoid discrimination.

People's rights were protected because the staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in decisions about care.

Relatives and friends could visit when they wished without notice.

There were links with the local community.

People had access to meaningful activities and were encouraged to follow interests and hobbies.

People made choices about what they ate and drank. Mealtimes were relaxed and sociable occasions, with people receiving the support they needed to eat and drink at their own pace. Dietary needs were assessed and referrals made to dieticians or speech and language therapists as appropriate.

People were supported with their health care needs. They each had a ‘health passport’ to provide to hospital staff in the event they needed treatment there.

There were sufficient appropriately trained staff on duty to support people in a person-centred way. The service used regular agency staff, whom people knew, to fill any gaps in the rota.

Staff were supported through training, supervision and appraisal to perform their roles effectively.

Staff were valued, respected and supported to develop the service, through supervision, team meetings and ad hoc conversations with the management team. The service was open to the concerns of staff, whether through whistleblowing, supervision and staff meetings, or staff surveys.

Accidents, incidents or near misses were recorded and monitored for developing trends.

The premises were clean and well maintained. Individual bedrooms were furnished and decorated according to people’s preferences.

People were protected from the spread of infection.

Medicines were stored securely and managed safely.

The service sought to support people to have a comfortable and dignified death when nearing end of life.

Clear information about how to make a complaint was available for people. Complaints were taken seriously and investigated openly and thoroughly.

The service worked in partnership with health and social care professionals and other organisations, to ensure people’s care needs were met and that staff kept up with good practice.

The provider had quality assurance processes in place, which helped to maintain standards and drive improvement.