This inspection took place on the 03 and 04 March 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 23 April 2013 the provider met all the requirements for the regulations we inspected.
Antokol is owned by a Polish charity and was established by Polish residents after the second World War. It has a strong Polish ethos and mainly but not exclusively provides care and support to people with strong Polish links. Antokol is set on three floors, ground and first floor are for people who live in the home and third floor is staff accommodation. The home provides residential, nursing and dementia care for up to 34 older people. On the day of the inspection there were 31 people living in the home. We were assisted by interpreters at this inspection as everyone’s first language was not English.
A newly registered manager was in post since the last inspection. They had previously worked as the deputy manager at the service. 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 told us they felt safe and well looked after at the service. Staff understood signs of abuse or neglect and knew how to report concerns. Individual risks to people were identified and monitored. There were no concerns about pressure ulcers and there had been no significant falls or injuries.
There were processes in place to manage emergencies. The premises and equipment including emergency equipment were routinely checked and maintained.
There were enough suitably qualified staff to meet people’s needs. People told us staff came promptly when they needed them and call bells were answered promptly. Adequate recruitment checks were in place before staff started work. Medicines were administered safely and risks of infection were minimised as the service was regularly cleaned and procedures for infection control were in place and followed.
Staff received suitable training and support to enable them to carry out their role. People were asked for their consent before they were given care. People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed in line with guidance and the law. The manager was aware of recent change to the law with regard to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations.
People had plenty to eat and drink. They told us they enjoyed the food and there was plenty of choice. People who were nursed in bed had a dedicated meal time to ensure they could eat at their own pace. Those at risk of malnutrition or dehydration were monitored and their weight checked regularly. People had access to a wide range of health and social care professionals to meet their health needs.
People told us the staff were caring, kind and gentle. We observed warm conversations between staff and people at the service. People were not rushed and their privacy and dignity was respected. Throughout the inspection we saw examples of care being provided by enthusiastic staff that were focussed on people’s individual needs. Relatives told us they had found somewhere with a sense of community. Professionals commented on the distinctive caring ethos and a health professional remarked on the importance staff placed on person centred care. People told us they were involved in the planning and review of their care. People’s end of life care was sensitively and appropriately managed.
People’s needs were assessed to ensure they could be safely met. They received planned care and support that met their needs. There was a regular activities programme with a range of group and individual activities on offer. We observed activities were well attended and enjoyed. Some people had formed a group that met for a social tea.
People, their relatives and staff all told us the service was well led. The management team looked for ways for the service to improve and linked with the local authority for training and support. The views of people at the service, relatives, staff and visiting professionals were sought and used to make improvements. People knew how and where to complain if they had a problem. There had been no formal complaints since the last inspection. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and areas identified that needed action were followed up promptly.