White Rock Nursing Home Limited

We found the following examples of good practice.

• Policies and procedures in relation to the management of risks associated with COVID-19 were thorough and up to date.

• There were arrangements in place for the visiting families and health professionals to safely visit people living at the service.

• Staff received infection prevention and control training and adhered to good practice in relation to the use of PPE.

At our last inspection on 20 and 21 January 2016, we found one breach of the regulations. The service was non-compliant with safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment. During this inspection we found action had been taken and improvements made.

The Registered manager left shortly before the inspection and there was a new manager in post who was applying to register with CQC.. 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 felt safe living at White Rock Nursing Home and risks to people were minimized through risk assessments. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at White Rock Nursing Home to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

Staff were trained and assessed as competent to support people with medicines. Medication administration records (MAR) confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.

People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

Most people’s care plans provided comprehensive information and were reviewed regularly. The service had introduced the ‘Resident of the day’ which ensured the staff spend time with the person to ensure care plans were updated and to see what improvements could be made to their needs.

Staff received regular support and one to one sessions or supervision to discuss areas of development. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction programme before being permitted to work unsupervised.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their rights were protected and their liberty was not restricted unlawfully.

People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. Care plans provided information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a range of activities. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

A complaints procedure was in place. There were appropriate management arrangements in place. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

At the last inspection on 18 September 2013 we found the service complied with all of the regulations we inspected.

White Rock Nursing Home provides accommodation, personal care and nursing treatment for up to 30 older people, all of whom are living with dementia. There were 28 people using the service at the time of this inspection.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

We received mostly positive feedback about the service from people who lived there and their friends and relatives.

People felt safe living at the home. However, they were not always protected against the risks of potential abuse.

There were some aspects of medicines management and administration that needed improvement to keep people safe.

Staff were aware of legislation to support people’s rights, however the documentation was under on-going review to ensure how people’s consent to their care and treatment was sought.

Staff received a programme of training and development but some aspects of the programme were out of date and still to be delivered.

The home’s environment had not been developed to take into account the needs of the people living with dementia. The provider was looking into how the environment could be made more user friendly for people living with dementia.

People’s records did not always support the delivery of personalised care and people could not always be assured that they would therefore receive appropriate care.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and appropriate checks had been undertaken, which made sure only suitable staff were employed to care for people in the home. There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care homes. Where people’s liberty or freedoms were at risk of being restricted, the proper authorisations were in place or had been applied for.

People received regular and on-going health checks and support to attend appointments. They were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. The choices of food and drink available were not always clear or offered.

There was a positive atmosphere within the home and people received care and support from staff who had got to know them well. Staff understood people’s individual needs and worked in a manner that respected people’s privacy and protected their dignity.

We received mixed feedback about the activities available and how much people were able to participate. There was a programme in place and staff dedicated to provide activities.

People were confident they could raise concerns or complaints and that these would be dealt with.

People and those important to them had opportunities to feedback their views about the home and quality of the service they received.

Aspects of the quality of service were monitored and plans were in place to bring these together into a specific quality assurance tool.

Staff felt they would be supported by the management to raise any issues or concerns.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People told us they felt safe at the home because the staff were always available to offer care and support. They and relatives told us they had daily contact with the manager or the deputy. They said they had good relationships with the manager and could raise issues before they became problems. This meant they had confidence the manager and staff ensured their needs were met and they were protected from harm.

We observed support being provided and this was person centred and respectful. When care was provided we saw the staff did not rush and continually spoke with the person offering reassurance and explanations. People therefore received care that protected their dignity.