Archived: OSJCT Southfield

Updated 28 August 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This consisted of one inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. In this case care of elderly people.

Service and service type:

Southfield 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.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection:

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and NHS healthcare professionals. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection:

We spoke with seven people who lived at Southfield. We spoke with the deputy manager, a representative of the provider (an area operations manager) and eight other staff. This included the maintenance person, activities co-ordinator, members of the day and night care teams and housekeeping team. We spoke with one healthcare professional.

We inspected five people’s care files, which included care plans and risk assessments. We also reviewed repositioning charts and medicine administration records. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included, staff rosters, two staff recruitment files and a selection of audits.

Updated 28 August 2019

About the service:

OSJCT Southfield is a residential care home. It can provide personal care to a total of 36 people aged 65 and over. At the time of the inspection 28 people were receiving support. People are accommodated in one adapted building.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

People were at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed as good medicine practices in relation to recording were not always followed. Some action was taken during the inspection to address these shortfalls.

Risks relating to all other areas of health and environmental safety had been identified and reduced. People were protected from potential abuse and discrimination.

The home was experiencing staffing pressures due to several staffing vacancies. Although a staff recruitment drive was underway, how the staffing needs of the home were being managed in the meantime was impacting on people and staff. Opportunities for social interaction and activities for people had been limited and staff morale was low. Some action was taken during the inspection to cover necessary staff shifts.

Although the provider had quality monitoring systems in place, these had not always led to action being taken to address shortfalls identified during this inspection. We have made a recommendation about the provider’s on-going quality monitoring and support arrangements.

People’s care was delivered by staff who received relevant training and guidance. People had access to healthcare support and staff worked together with other agencies to facilitate timely and effective support for people.

People received help to maintain their nutritional wellbeing.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were caring and committed to the wellbeing of those they looked after. Staff knew people well and were aware of people’s preferences and wishes in relation to their protected characteristics. Policies and procedures ensured the principles of the Equality Act 2010 were met.

The Accessible Information Standards were met; people received information and were communicated with in a way which met their needs.

People were involved in planning and reviewing their care according to their preferences and individual diverse needs. Relatives and representatives were able to speak on behalf of people where appropriate. Information about people’s care was kept up to date to reduce the risk of people receiving unsafe or inappropriate care.

People’s end of life wishes were explored with them and a dignified and comfortable death was supported.

People had opportunities to take part in social activities, although, these at times had been curtailed when the needs of the home had taken priority.

People and their relatives had opportunities to feedback their views.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was Good (report published 15 November 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We have found evidence that the provider needed to make improvements to the quality of the service. Please see the ‘Is the service safe?’ and ‘Is the service well-led?’ key questions of the full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for OSJCT Southfield on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up:

We will ask the provider for an action plan telling us how they intend to improve the key questions ‘Is the service safe?’ and ‘Is the service well-led?’ to at least ‘Good’.