Archived: Peter Gidney Neurological Care Centre

Updated 26 May 2017

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 11 April 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors, one specialist nurse adviser and one expert by experience who has experience of a family member living in a care home. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete 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 looked at notifications about important events that had taken place in the service which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.

We spoke with seven people who lived at Peter Gidney Neurological Care Centre and a visitor, to gain their views and experience of the service provided. We also spoke to the manager, the unit manager, an administrator and five staff including two registered nurses. We received feedback from one health and social care professional.

We spent time observing the care provided and the interaction between staff and people. We looked at 12 people’s care files, medicine administration records and staff records as well as staff training records, the staff rota and staff team meeting minutes. We spent time looking at the provider’s records such as; policies and procedures, auditing and monitoring systems, complaints and incident and accident recording systems. We also looked at residents and relatives meeting minutes and surveys

Updated 26 May 2017

The inspection took place on 11 April 2017. The inspection was unannounced.

The Peter Gidney Neurological Care Centre is registered to provide accommodation and personal care with nursing for up to 26 younger adults. There were 24 people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

The people living in the home all had a neurological condition such as recovering from a stroke or an acquired brain injury caused by an accident or medical condition. Some people had limited mobility and could walk around with support, whilst others relied on a wheelchair or full staff support to get around. Some people were nursed in bed and some people required support to communicate their needs and wishes.

The Peter Gidney Neurological Care Centre is a purpose built property that is spacious but in some need of improvement. The provider had plans to refurbish the premises in order to provide a more conducive environment for the people living there. The service was set in a quiet location away from busy main roads and with pleasant gardens with flowers, shrubs and trees.

A registered manager was employed by the provider to manage the service, however they were not available as they were absent from work. A temporary manager with the relevant experience and qualifications was managing the service in their absence. 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.

The provider had previously been registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) at this location. However, they had changed the legal entity of this service and this required them to apply for a new registration with CQC, which commenced on 30 October 2016. The service had continued within the same premises and with the same staff team and registered manager. This was the first inspection under the new registration, however, you can find previous inspection reports on the CQC website.

People were kept safe as the provider had systems and procedures in place to protect people from abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe and felt confident to raise any concerns they had with the management team. Staff told us they thought any concerns they had would be taken seriously but they knew who to go to outside of the organisation if they were worried.

The manager made sure any risks faced by individuals had been identified and control measures put in place to manage the risk to keep people safe. Medicines were managed safely and effectively by registered nurses. People had a comprehensive care plan that provided detail of the individual support they required. People and their family members were involved in developing and reviewing their care plan.

Although a timetable of activities were in place that people could take part in, these were not suitable for some people living in the service. People did not get the opportunity to go out away from the service very often and told us they would like to. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People with specialist nutritional needs were supported appropriately on an individual basis. People also received the support they needed to maintain their health and well-being and to access healthcare services.

Environmental risks of the premises and grounds had been assessed and managed to keep people, staff and visitors safe. All essential maintenance and servicing of equipment had been carried out. Fire safety had been carefully considered and all appropriate measures to prevent fire and to keep people safe in the event of a fire had been undertaken.

The service supported people with complex health care needs. There were enough registered nurses and care staff deployed to be able to support the assessed care needs of people using the service. Safe recruitment practices were carried out by the provider to ensure people were only supported by staff who were suitable to work with people who are vulnerable as a result of their circumstances.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider, management team and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Many staff had worked at the service for a number of years and were happy in their role. The service had an atmosphere that was friendly and welcoming. Staff knew people well and took this into account when providing individual care, supporting people to remain as independent as possible.

People, their relatives, friends and visiting professionals were asked their views on a regular basis. This was made easy to do by an electronic tablet system. Feedback was analysed by the provider and used to improve the service provided.

Although the registered manager was absent and had been for some months, the provider had ensured a suitable replacement was in place to manage the smooth running of the service. The staff team were happy with the arrangement and felt well supported. Although staff supervision had not been regular, the temporary manager had a plan in place to address this issue. Registered nurses and care staff had received the training necessary to carry out their role and to support people’s complex health needs.

The provider had a robust approach to quality assurance, making sure systems were in place to check the quality and safety of the service.