This unannounced inspection took place on 31 December 2014. A second, announced day of inspection took place on 2 January 2015. The previous inspection, undertaken on 9 July 2013, found there were no breaches of legal requirements.
The Manor House Gosforth is a care home without nursing and provides accommodation and personal care for up to 46 people. At the time of the inspection there were 46 people using the service, some of whom were living with dementia.
The home had a registered manager in place, and our records showed she had been formally registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) since March 2013. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us said they felt safe living at the home. Staff understood safeguarding issues and described to us what potential abuse might look like and how they would deal with it if they saw anything which concerned them.. Accidents and incidents were monitored and reviewed to identify and issues or concerns.
The registered manager told us each person who used the service had been assessed for their level of dependency and this information was used to determine the minimum staff number needed to run the home. In addition to this system they monitored people’s needs and staff feedback on the number of staff needed, and was able to show us when they increased the number of staff when necessary. Suitable recruitment procedures and checks were in place, to ensure staff had the right skills to support people at the home. Medicines were handled safely and effectively and stored securely.
People told us they were happy with the standard and range of food and drink provided at the home. People were given a choice about what they wanted to eat at each meal. Kitchen staff kept records regarding people’s individual dietary requirements and preferences.
People told us they felt the staff had the right skills and experience to look after them. Staff confirmed they had access to a range of training and updating. Staff told us, and records confirmed that regular supervision took place and that they received annual appraisals.
Mental Capacity Assessments had been completed in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We also found the provider acted in accordance with the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards aim to make sure people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom.
People told us they were happy with the care provided. We observed staff treated people kindly and were patient. Staff knew people well, and used their knowledge of people’s families and life histories to engage with them. Staff were able to tell us about people’s particular needs and how best to support them. People’s health and wellbeing was monitored, and staff regularly referred people to GPs and district nurses.
People were assessed against a range of potential risks, such as poor nutrition, falls, skin damage and mobility. Where other risks had been identified assessments had been carried out to ensure people received appropriate care.
Care plans reflected people’s individual needs and were reviewed to reflect changes in people’s care, as necessary. A range of activities were offered for people to participate in, both inside and out of the home. People and relatives told us if they had any concerns they would feel happy to discuss these with senior staff or the registered manager. People told us any issues they had raised had been dealt with quickly and to their satisfaction. Records had been kept of formal complaints, including information on investigations carried out and action taken in response to complaints.
Robust quality monitoring systems were in place which covered areas such as meetings, feedback and audits. All areas of the service were reviewed regularly.
The management and leadership arrangements in the service were good. People who used the service, their relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and the organisation.