Collinson Care Home

Collinson Care home Ltd is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 29 people. The service provides support to adults, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people present in the service.

People’s experience of the service and what we found:

People received safe care and were protected from abuse and the risk of abuse. Risk assessments were undertaken for known risks to people’s care and support. These were reviewed regularly or when something changed. There were usually enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were recruited safely including checks to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.

People received their medicines from trained staff. Medicines administration processes were followed and checks were undertaken regularly which reduced the risk of errors. Staff received training in infection prevention and control. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed to reduce the risk of cross infection.

Staff reported and recorded incidents and accidents such as falls. Appropriate follow up action was taken. Regular analysis of falls took place so patterns or themes could be identified. Lessons were learned when things went wrong and improvements were implemented to reduce the risk of recurrence.

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

Audits were carried out to monitor the quality and standards within the service. The manager had effective oversight of all key areas and was aware of their regulatory responsibilities. This included informing the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of notifiable events and incidents. The management team worked openly and transparently for the benefit of people living in the service.

Staff provided positive feedback about teamwork with their colleagues and feeling supported by the management team. The manager had recently started in post and was well regarded by staff as well as people and their families. When any issues or concerns were raised, these were taken seriously and dealt with by the management team. People and their relatives knew who to talk to if they had any issues or concerns.

The staff team worked well with health and social care professionals to ensure people received care and treatment to meet their needs.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good, published 1 May 2018. A targeted inspection to review infection prevention and control practices was published on 9 February 2021, this did not provide a rating.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key question not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Collinson Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow Up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The communal parts of the home were clean and well maintained. We observed staff wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly.

¿ Professionals and staff entered and left the home in a safe way. People were supported to speak with their relatives on the phone and with tablets.

¿ Staff received regular COVID-19 tests and people had monthly COVID-19 tests as per government guidance.

¿ Staff were allocated to permanent floors and the laundry staff followed the government guidance with the processing of laundry from COVID-19 positive people.

Collinson Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home accommodates up to 29 people with a range of care needs including those living with dementia. People are accommodated over two floors, with all communal areas on the ground floor. At the time of the inspection, 28 people were being supported by the service, with one person in hospital.

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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support an overall rating of ‘good’, and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. The provider had made further improvements in their medicines management, care planning, and quality monitoring systems to ensure that people received consistently safe, effective and good quality care. The exceptional leadership and management of the service fostered a culture that encouraged collaborative working and openness. The registered manager provided stable leadership and effective support to the staff. People, relatives and staff’s feedback was listened to and improvements made in a timely way. The registered manager and the provider were keen on further exploring innovative ways of ensuring that they were the best care home in the local area. The provider made financial resources available to achieve this, resulting in positive care outcomes for people using the service.

People were safe because there were effective risk assessments in place, and systems to keep them safe from abuse or avoidable harm. There was sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. Staff took appropriate precautions to ensure people were protected from the risk of acquired infections. People’s medicines were managed safely, and there was evidence of learning from incidents.

People’s needs had been assessed and they had care plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. Staff had regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs effectively. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being met, and staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care and support being provided. People had been supported to have enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were also supported to access healthcare services when required.

People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff regularly reviewed the care provided to people with their input to ensure that this continued to meet their individual needs in a person centred way. The provider had an effective system to handle complaints and concerns. A variety of activities that people enjoyed were provided, and people were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. People were supported to remain comfortable, dignified and pain-free at the end of their lives.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We found that the home was not meeting all the minimum standards required.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in a safe and well maintained home. We found that the home was cleaned regularly and infection control checks were carried out by the home manager to ensure that people were protected against the risk of infection. We saw that the home had call bells in place and that staff responded quickly when a call bell sounded. Risk assessments had been put in place for people and staff were aware of the risks and how to manage them and protect people who use the service. We did however find that people were not always protected during the night and early morning. We found that some people using the service did not always sleep through the night and would remain in communal areas. These areas were left unsupervised at night when staff carried out two to one care. This meant that people seated in the communal areas were at risk of harm.

Is the service effective?

We observed the care that was provided to people and from our conversations with both staff and people using the service we saw that people were happy in their surroundings and were able to move about the home freely. People we spoke with told us that 'staff don't have time' but that they did their work well. Staff told us that they felt supported and were able to spend time with people. We saw that the care plans were regularly reviewed and contained detailed information about the person and their needs which meant that staff were kept aware of people's needs and were therefore able to provide the correct care and support.

Is the service caring?

We observed and were also told by people who used the service that the staff were kind and caring. One person said, 'they treat me as their own'. We observed during our inspection that staff listened to people and responded to their requests quickly. We observed staff interacting with people. We saw that staff when administering medication were patient and advised people on the medication being given. Staff told us that they would always put the needs of the person first rather than follow daily tasks. This showed that the care being provided was person centred and not task led.

Is the service responsive?

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly by the manager to ensure that they could respond quickly to any changes in people's needs. We saw that people's needs were attended to by the staff. We saw that on the day of our inspection a person was due to return from hospital and required significant changes to be made to their care needs. We saw that staff were aware of the changes and that the senior staff and manager were updating the person's care plan to reflect the person's needs.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us that the manager was 'very good and experienced'. Staff told us that the manager was 'hands on' and did not stay in the office but would rather spend time with people who used the service. They also said that the owner visited the home regularly and spent time with people and would always call at weekends to ensure that all was ok within the home. We saw from notices within the staff rooms that management were always on call and available out of hours. This was also confirmed by staff. We saw that the manager was continuously monitoring the effectiveness of the care through audits and daily checks.

Staff that we spoke with gave clear examples of how they would gain consent from people and where this was not possible, when the Mental Capacity Act should be applied. We saw records that showed us that equipment used was properly maintained, suitable for its purpose and used appropriately. We saw there was equipment available in sufficient quantities to attend to the needs of the people who used the service.

People we spoke with during this visit told us they were happy with the staff who cared for them. One visiting relative said "They are unbelievably good here." We also spoke with three visiting professionals one of whom told us they felt the staff were 'very helpful and cooperative.'

We saw the results of a satisfaction survey completed by the home in late 2012 and minutes from residents and staff meetings. We checked to see if actions from these had been followed up, which they had been. People we spoke with told us that the manager was open to feedback, listened to them and acted appropriately to constantly improve the service. One person said, "They have done what they said they would do.' This meant that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.