Archived: The Malting's Care Home

Updated 23 February 2016

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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection was carried out on 2 February 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we looked at all of the information that we had about the service. This included information from notifications received by us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Also 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.

During the inspection we spoke with eight people; three relatives; the Nominated Individual [a named person representing the registered provider]; two registered nurses; a senior carer supervisor; a senior carer; two members of care staff. We also spoke with an activities co-ordinator; a member of the catering staff and a visiting health care professional. We observed care to help us with our understanding of how people were looked after. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at six people’s care records, medicines administration records and records in relation to the management of staff and management of the service.

Updated 23 February 2016

The Malting’s Care Home is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 50 people, some of whom live with dementia. The home, which is located close to Peterborough, is arranged on two floors. The first floor is accessed by stairs or lifts. There is an enclosed garden to the rear. On-site facilities include a gym and cinema. At the time of our visit there were 49 people using the service.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 2 February 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 18 May 2015 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements regarding the display of our judgement ratings and this action was completed. A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 were kept safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who used the service. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink and there were choices of food from what was on the main menu. They were also supported to access health care services and their individual health needs were met.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The provider was acting in accordance with the requirements of the MCA so that people had their rights protected by the law.

Assessments were in place to determine if people had the capacity to make decisions in relation to their care. When people were assessed to lack capacity, their care was provided in their best interests. In addition, the provider had notified the responsible authorities when some of the people had restrictions imposed on them for safety reasons. The provider was meeting the conditions of people’s authorised DoLS applications.

People were looked after by staff who were trained and supported to do their job.

People were supported by kind, respectful and attentive staff. Relatives were given opportunities to be involved in the review of their family members’ individual care plans.

People were supported with a range of hobbies and interests that took part in and out of the home. Care was provided based on people’s individual needs. There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to.

The provider had not submitted notifications as they were required to when people’s DoLS applications were authorised. This omission had reduced the provider’s ability to demonstrate that they operated a transparent culture as part of their duty of candour. The registered manager was supported by a team of managerial, care and ancillary staff. Staff were supported and managed to look after people in a safe way. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken as a result. Since our last inspection of 18 May 2015 improvements had been made in relation to the displaying of our judgement ratings within the home and on the provider’s website. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action had been taken where improvements were identified.

We found the provider was in breach of a regulation in relation to submission of notifications regarding people’s authorised DoLS. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.