Archived: Nyton House

We found that the registered manager had taken the steps needed that ensured that the management of medicines was safe.

Medicines were kept in a locked cupboard or trolley and the keys were kept safe by staff trained to administer medicines. appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe ordering, storing, administering and disposing of medicines.

You can see our judgement on the front page of this report.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We found that not all aspects of the service were safe. People were cared for by staff who were knowledgeable about their needs and had the skills to provide the support people required. However, appropriate arrangements were not in place in relation to the recording of medicines. Seven out of the 23 people’s medicines administration record (MAR) charts we looked at, had not been completed correctly. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to the recording of medication.

We looked at five care plans which included the necessary information to inform staff as to the specific care people required. They also included risk assessments associated with specific elements of people’s care, such as falling or tripping and specified the action required to manage those risks.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The home was clean and well maintained. There was also a current infection control policy, which detailed the relevant infection control issues and guidance for staff.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Relevant staff had received training to enable them to understand when an application should be made. At the time of our inspection nobody in the home was subject to DoLS.

The manager ensured there were enough staff working at the home to meet people’s care needs.

Is the service effective?

The care plans we looked at were personalised to reflect people’s individual needs and their likes and dislikes. The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they were receiving and their needs had been met. One person said “the staff are gentle, kind and compassionate. They have made me feel valued and have helped me build up my confidence”. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with the staff that they knew the people they were looking after well and had a good understanding of their care and support needs.

Staff had received training to ensure they had the skills necessary to care for people. Staff told us about the care they were providing for specific people which matched information in the person’s care plan.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People said they had no concerns over how they were treated and they felt their privacy and dignity were respected. One of the visitors we spoke with told us staff understood their relative’s needs. They added “that was what was important to us. They do care; it is not just a job”. The records we looked at showed staff took account of people’s individual wishes and these were respected, when providing care. We observed care in the communal areas of the home and saw staff interacting with people in a positive way.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We looked in people’s bedrooms and saw they were individualised and appropriate for the person’s needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and we saw them knock and wait before entering a person’s bedroom.

People’s wellbeing was enhanced through the availability of individual and group activities focussed on people’s preferences, interests and diverse needs.

Is the service responsive?

There were arrangements in place to respond to short term staff absences, which were managed through the use of overtime, the home’s own bank staff, the manager or agency staff when necessary.

We saw there was an effective compliments and complaints policy in place, which was published in the service users’ guide and posted on notice boards around the home. The manager showed us their complaints log and told us they had received three complaints since the beginning of the year. We saw these issues had been investigated and resolved appropriately. The people and visitors we spoke with told us they knew how to complain and thought their complaints would be listened to.

Systems were in place to ensure the manager and staff learnt from accidents and incidents. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve. The home had up to date policies and procedures in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing.

Is the service well-led?

There was a clear management structure. There were also procedures in place to monitor the quality of service provided with audits of care plans, medication administration records (MAR), accidents and incidents and infection control. Where an issue was identified remedial action was taken.

A regular questionnaire was sent out to people, their friends and families seeking their views on the service provided. The manager showed us the results of the latest questionnaire. We looked at the responses and saw the feedback was positive with 100 percent of people rating the service provided by the home as excellent.

Staff attended regular supervision meetings and there was an effective staff meeting structure in place, where staff could raise any issues or concerns.

People told us they were happy in the home and that they had choices in the care they receive. One person told us "It is excellent here, they can't do enough". Another told us "I am happy here, they look after me very well and they are polite and respectful".

Relatives told us that the "Home was marvellous", "They have a welcoming and honest approach", "The staff are marvellous" and that "They bend over backwards to ensure good care". One other relative told us that the improvement in their family member in this home was remarkable in comparison to the previous home they were in.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. One person told us "I am very happy here and staff always ask before any care is given".

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Recruitment procedures ensured that people were looked after by staff who were appropriately qualified to do the job.

The provider had ensured that records were accurate, up to date and stored securely.

Another person told us that they "could bring up any problem and it would be fixed" and another person told us "It is excellent, the best home ever".

We spoke with three relatives who were extremely complimentary about the home. One told us "The care is 100%, there is continuity of care and that the staff go over the top to help people". Another relative told us "it is a home from home and that there was an excellent caring staff. The home offers good old fashioned care". A third relative told us that the home caters to people's individuality and that the activities and seasonal events on offer meet the needs of people living in the home.

Care needs were assessed and met by a trained and competent team.

People were safeguarded from abuse.

Medicines were being handled appropriately in the home.

The service had quality assurances systems in place to ensure the effective running of the home.