Archived: Nevetts

Updated 18 July 2018

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 was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2014 and to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us.

The inspection was unannounced and carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has experience of using this type of service or supporting a person using this type of service.

During the inspection we spoke with nine people who used the service, one relative, six staff members, the regional manager, the quality manager and the manager. We received information from service commissioners and health and social care professionals. We viewed information relating to four people’s care and support. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us due to their complex health needs.

Updated 18 July 2018

This inspection was carried out on 3 July 2018 and was unannounced. At their last inspection January 2016 the service was rated as Good and were meeting the required standards. At this inspection we found that they had continued to meet all the standards we inspected.

Nevetts is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Nevetts provides accommodation for up to 41 older people, some of whom live with dementia. The home is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of the inspection there were 32 people living there.

The service had a manager who was in the process of becoming registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People, relatives and staff felt the service was well run. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and address any shortfalls. The management team worked with other agencies to improve and maintain standards.

People felt safe and were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and respond to risks. Staff were aware of fire safety but better communication in regard to individual evacuation plans was needed.

People were supported by staff who were recruited safely. However, staff told us at times that staffing had been difficult and they had depended on agency staff. People were supported by staff who were trained and had regular supervision

Medicines were managed safely and lessons learned were shared and incidents were reviewed. We found that there were effective infection control practices. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were adhered to, people were supported to eat and drink enough and risks were monitored. There was regular access to health professionals and the design of the building suited people’s needs.

People were treated with dignity and respect. We found that staff were kind and friendly. Confidentiality was promoted and people and their relatives were involved in their care. People’s care needs were met in a way they liked and their care plans included the appropriate information to help ensure care was provided in a person centred and safe way. Where people were supported at the end of their lives, this was done with dignity and kindness. People enjoyed the activities provided. However, some people would have liked more. We found that complaints were responded to and feedback was sought.