Archived: April Cottage Retirement Home

Updated 8 January 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.

This inspection took place on 4 and 10 of November. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed notifications that we had received from the provider. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We contacted the local authority who had funding responsibility for some of the people who were using the service.

We spoke with six people who used the service. We also spoke with a visiting health professional and three visitors during our inspection.

We spoke with the provider, the registered manager and five care workers. We looked at the care records of three people who used the service and other documentation about how the home was managed. This included policies and procedures, medication records, staff records, handover records, staff rota and records associated with quality assurance processes.

Updated 8 January 2016

We inspected the service on 4 November and 10 November

April Cottage Retirement Home provides accommodation for up to 12 older people. There were 11 people using the service on the day of our inspection.

There was 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.

People felt safe within the home. Risks were assessed and managed to protect them from harm.

Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who used the service. People received their medicines as required and medicines were managed and administered safely.

People’s independence was promoted and choice making encouraged. People remained part of the wider community if they wished to and links with people important to them were maintained.

Most people had the capacity to make decisions about their care and the support they received. These people were involved and their opinions sort and respected. Where people required support to make decisions, the service did not follow the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager and staff team were unclear of their role in ensuring best interest decisions were made for people.

The registered manager had assessed the care needs of people using the service. Staff had a clear understanding of their role and how to support people who used the service as individuals. Where people had more complex needs these were not always being met.

Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and compassion. People enjoyed the meals provided and where they had dietary requirements, these were met. People were offered adequate drinks to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Systems were in place to monitor the health and wellbeing of people who used the service.

People’s health needs were met and when necessary, outside health professionals were contacted for support.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager. The registered manager supervised staff and regularly checked their competency to carry out their role. People who used the service felt they could talk to the registered manager and had faith that they would address issues if required. Relatives found the registered manager to be approachable.