Background to this inspection
Updated
5 October 2016
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.
The inspection took place on the 25 and 26 August 2016 and was unannounced.
The inspection team was made up of one inspector and a specialist nurse who had experience of the care of older people in care homes.
Prior to the inspection, we reviewed the information we held such as previous inspection reports and notifications. Notifications are specific events registered people are required to inform us about by law. We also reviewed the 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.
During the inspection, we spoke with 10 people and three family members. We sat with people at lunch times and spoke with them as a group. We also received written feedback from four family members after the inspection. We reviewed the care of six people in detail to look at whether they were receiving their care as planned. We spoke to them were we could to ensure they were happy with the care they were receiving.
We spoke with eight staff and reviewed three staff personnel files. Staff training, supervision and appraisal planning were also reviewed. We also reviewed the information held at the service by the registered manager and provider to demonstrate they reviewed the quality of the service and ensured the building and equipment were safe. The registered manager, deputy manager and area manager, representing the provider, supported the inspection. We were sent written feedback from a health professional following the inspection.
Updated
5 October 2016
The inspection took place on the 25 and 26 August 2016 and was unannounced. We previously inspected the service on the 3 March 2014 and found no concerns.
St James' Park Care Home (known locally as St James’) can provide residential care for up to 31 older people. Nursing care is provided. St James’ is registered with us to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. Diagnostic and screening procedures was discussed on inspection to request it is removed if this activity is not in use. We were advised that Bupa Care Homes are seeking to have this activity removed from all its locations that provide nursing care.
A registered manager was employed to manage the service locally. 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 happy and safe living at St James’. They felt staff treated them with kindness and respect. People felt in control of their care and important as individuals to staff.
Although we found there were enough staff to manage the service safely, we were told by people, family and staff that this had not always been the case. We looked at this during the inspection and discussed the issues raised, with the registered manager and area manager. They told us there had been issues with recruiting staff, but four weeks prior to the inspection other ways of ensuring there were enough staff deployed was implemented. This included the use of agency staff. The registered manager was managing this and another service locally. They were supported by a deputy manager in each location and a staff structure which allowed them to have oversight of both services. We had discussions with the area manager, (as staffing issues had recently put pressures on the registered manager) to ensure there was sufficient support for the registered manager to fulfil their role effectively. We were reassured this would be monitored when checks by the provider were completed at the service. This would help ensure any issues or support needs could be identified quickly.
People’s medicines were administered safely and they had their nutritional and health needs met. People could see a range of health professionals as required. People had risk assessments in place so they could live safely at the service. People’s care was personalised and planned with them and staff responded quickly to any need to ensure people’s current needs were met. People’s end of life needs were planned with them. People were supported at the end of their life with dignity and free of pain. The service was accredited in respect of how they cared for people and their families at the end of their life.
Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm and abuse. Staff were recruited safely and underwent training to ensure they were able to carry out their role effectively. Staff were trained to meet people’s specific needs. Staff promoted people’s rights to be involved in planning and consenting to their care. Where people were not able to consent to their care, staff followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant people’s human rights were upheld.
Activities were provided to keep people physically and cognitively stimulated. People’s faith and cultural needs were met.
There were clear systems of governance and leadership in place. The provider and registered manager ensured there were systems in place to measure the quality of the service. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback on the service. Everyone felt they were listened to and any contribution they made was taken seriously. Regular audits made sure the service was running well. Where issues were noted, action was taken to put this right.
Systems were in place to ensure the building and equipment were safe. Staff followed safe infection control procedures