Archived: Charnwood Park Residential Home

Charnwood Park Residential Home provides accommodation for up to 11 older people with physical difficulties and sensory impairments. 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 were protected from harm. People told us they felt safe and that there were enough staff available to meet their needs. There was a recruitment policy in place which the registered manager followed. We found that all the required pre-employment checks were being carried out before staff were to commence work.

Risks were assessed and managed to protect people 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 staff encouraged people to make independent choices.. People remained part of the wider community if they wished to and they were supported to maintain links with people important to them.

People were supported to make decisions about the care they received. People’s opinions were sought and respected. The provider had considered their responsibility to meet the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was clear 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.

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.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. A relative told us they were confident that their mother was safe at the home. Safeguarding procedures are robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations, This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards although no applications needed to be submitted. The manager had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, very clean and hygienic.

The registered manager set the staff rotas, they took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were met.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them. They were involved in reviews of their care plans. Dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans.

People were able to move around the home freely and safely because the home was well laid out and adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

Visiting times were flexible though the service preferred visitors to avoid visiting at meal times so that people could have their meals undisturbed. Evening visits were allowed but the service preferred relatives to give notice of any visits after 8pm.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers gave assurance and encouragement when supporting people. People commented, "They're awfully kind. I get all the help I want". A relative said, "The staff are very caring. They do things well above what I'd expect".

People who used the service and their relatives completed an annual satisfaction survey. The service acted upon what people said.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People took part in a range of activities in and outside the service. Some activities catered for people's individual needs and other activities involved other people who lived at the home. Several activities were provided by people from the local community.

People knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns if they were unhappy. No complaints had been made, but people could be assured that complaints would be investigated and acted upon.

Is the service well led?

The service had an effective quality assurance system that identified shortfalls and good practice. Shortfalls were promptly addressed. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We spoke with a number of people who used the service and visitors to the service. We asked them if the provider included them in the planning and development of their care and support plan. All told us they had. One relative told us: 'I have two relatives using the service. We were all involved in the planning of their care.'

We also spoke with two members of staff and asked them to explain their approach to meeting the needs of the people they cared for. Their responses demonstrated they understood the concept of ensuring care plans were current and care needs accurately recorded in the care records.

In the care records we reviewed we saw that risk assessments were conducted for people who used equipment. We also saw that a moving and handling assessment was undertaken in conjunction with the equipment risk assessment.

Staff received appropriate professional development. We saw and heard evidence that all staff had received a supervision and an appraisal with the manager.

We asked the staff we spoke with to explain how they would deal with a complaint. Their responses indicated they felt confident to support anyone who wished to complain.

Every care record we saw was signed by the person or a relative of the person using the service. This ensured that their consent remained valid. One person told us 'We sign to say we agree with our care".

The care records we saw included detailed pre admission risk assessments, dependency risk assessments and plans for managing the identified risks. We saw evidence the care records were monitored monthly or earlier if the needs of the person who used the service changed.

The environment was clean and the d'cor was in good condition. One member of staff told us:' This is a pleasant environment to work in. We report any maintenance issues directly to the manager and things get repaired. A person who used the service told us:' Things get repaired here before you know it'.

We saw four staff files. The staff files all included an application form, which detailed a full employment history and information about any health conditions which might affect their fitness to carry out their role, two references, confirmation of identification and a CRB check.

We saw evidence of meetings held with the people who used the service and their relatives. We saw evidence of regular checks being carried out and the staff we spoke with told us that the manager carried out spot checks on care and the environment.