Phil Mead House

Updated 5 March 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. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: This inspection was carried out by 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.

Service and service type: Phil Mead House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a 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. Inspection site visit activity started on 4 February 2019 and ended on 4 February 2019.

What we did: Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The provider returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgements in this report. We reviewed other information that we held about the service such as notifications. These are events that happen in the service that the provider is required to tell us about. We also considered the last inspection report and information that had been sent to us by other agencies. We also contacted commissioners who had a contract with the service.

We spoke with four people using the service, and three relatives of people who used the service. We also spoke with two staff members, the chef, the registered manager, and a visiting health professional. We also looked at two people’s care plans, staff files, and other records such as audits and incident records.

Updated 5 March 2019

About the service: Phil Mead House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 28 people. At the time of inspection, 28 people were using the service

People’s experience of using this service: People continued to receive safe care. Staff understood safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse and incidents of concern. Risk assessments were in place to manage risks within people’s lives, whilst also promoting their independence.

Staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out. Staffing support matched the level of assessed needs within the service during our inspection.

Staff training was provided to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and support they needed to perform their roles. Specialist training was provided to make sure that people’s needs were met and they were supported effectively.

Staff were well supported by the registered manager, and had one to one supervisions. The staff we spoke with were all positive about the senior staff and management in place.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff continued to treat people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them. Care plans reflected people’s likes and dislikes, and staff spoke with people in a friendly manner.

People were involved in their own care planning and could contribute to the way in which they were supported. People and their family were involved in reviewing their care and making any necessary changes.

A process was in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns. Concerns were acted upon promptly and lessons were learned through positive communication.

The service continued to be well managed. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions were taken and improvements were made when required.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 14/03/2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.