Archived: Edinburgh Park

Medicines were not managed safely and our findings were that the medication procedures were not monitored effectively.

The infection control practices carried out by staff were not effective and there was lack of monitoring the infection control and cleaning practices at the home.

People’s experience of using this service:

Four relatives told us they thought they received safe care. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and how to raise any concerns they had. Risks to people had been assessed and measures put in place to reduce these risks. However, we found that actions were not always taking place by staff or monitored by the management team.

Relatives told us they felt that their family members were safe living in the home due to the support they received from staff. Individual risks to people had been assessed and measures were in place to mitigate those risks. For example, sensor mats were used to alert staff when people were at risk of falling. Appropriate actions had been taken when accidents or incidents occurred. However identified risks that had actions for staff were no always followed.

Feedback from relatives was predominately good. They told us staffing levels were mainly good but at times more staff were required. All said they thought their relatives were receiving good respectful care and their needs were met. All four relatives told us that they were happy with the care.

There were vacancies at the home that were being advertised. We saw sufficient numbers of staff on duty on the two days of the inspection. Safe recruitment practices had been followed, and all records required were in place. The provider used bank staff and agency staff for nursing roles and carers roles.

Staff felt well supported in their role and able to raise any issues with senior staff and the registered manager. Regular training had been completed by staff and they received supervisions. The service had been open for 11 months and the provider told us that an annual appraisal procedure was in place and scheduled to further support staff in their posts.

The food served at the home was of a good standard except for the special diets that were liquidised and did not look appetising. Relatives we spoke with told us that they thought the food was plentiful and good quality. People's nutritional needs were known by staff; however, records of food supplements were not completed, and we were unsure of quantities provided.

The building was in a good state of repair and people and relatives told us they were comfortable. The décor was conducive for people living with dementia and had been decorated so as not to look the same in areas so people walking down corridors could recognise their doors. We spoke with the provider who informed us that there was an agreed plan to use good practice guidelines for decorating the corridors and doors to meet the needs of all people living there. We saw from the plans that these areas had been actioned.

The service worked with other professionals and agencies to help ensure people's needs were met effectively. Advice provided was clearly recorded however at times they were not being followed by staff.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Relatives and people told us staff were kind and caring and that their dignity was protected by staff. This was also reflected within the compliment cards and letters we looked at. Relatives told us the staff knew their family members well and cared and supported them well, including their needs and preferences.

Care plans were clearly recorded. They detailed how people wished and needed to be cared for. They were reviewed and updated as required with changes in care and support. We saw that relatives were involved in supporting staff to understand how people wished to be cared for. There were activities provided at the home and relatives told us their family members enjoyed them.

We looked at the systems to gather feedback from people regarding the service and there was one completed satisfaction survey completed by a relative. The feedback was positive. The systems in place for audits and management oversight were in place however when issues were found they were not always effectively addressed.

Rating at last inspection: This is the first inspection at Edinburgh Park.

Why we inspected: Scheduled/planned inspection.

Enforcement: The service met the characteristics of Inadequate in one key question of safe.

Requires Improvement in effective, caring, responsive and well-led. More information will be in the main report.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme.

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