We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Star Nursing Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Star Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The registered manager had introduced monitoring of people's health and temperatures twice daily. As well as this being used to detect whether people were COVID-19 symptomatic, it also enabled the nursing staff to identify on at least four occasions, early signs of other infection.
External staff, such as agency staff were not used. This ensures that staff working within the service do not work in other care services, so therefore reduces the risk of spreading infection.
The registered manager had introduced assistive technology in order to minimise the spread of infection and support the domestic staff. For example, motion sensor lights were being used throughout the service, and being introduced to people’s bedrooms. This was to limit the amount of staff touching light switches. New furniture had also been ordered that could be regularly disinfected.
The provider had ordered clear face masks to support staff to communicate with people who had been struggling with staff wearing the face coverings. This will help to reduce people's anxiety and support with effective communication.
Staff at the service had participated in a COVID-19 well-being survey. The survey highlighted that staff felt well-supported. They also felt that they had received enough training in regard to IPC (infection prevention control) and the use of PPE (personal protective equipment).
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were happy at the service and were supported by staff who knew them well. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. People were supported to make decisions about their care. People’s care plans were person centred and gave staff information on how to support them.
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.
The recruitment process and training systems meant people were supported by staff who were suitable to work in a care setting and equipped for their role. People’s felt there were enough staff to meet their needs. On the day of inspection people had their needs met in a timely fashion.
Staff received appropriate training and were supported to develop. Staff received regular supervisions and staff meetings. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.
People had their individual risks assessed and reviewed regularly or when required. People received their medicines when needed and these were managed safely. People told us that personal care needs were met in a way they liked. People confirmed staff were kind and they were confident to speak up if they had any concerns.
People had access to activities, their choices were promoted, relatives were positive about the way the care was provided. People were supported to express their views. People and their relatives described the staff as kind and caring.
People had access to other professionals to ensure they received the right care and support.
The provider had systems in place to help them identify and resolve any issues in the home. The registered manager was known throughout the home and people and staff were positive about them. All staff were clear about what was expected of them and any lessons learned from events or incidents were shared with staff.
More information about our inspection findings is in the full report.
The last rating for this service was good (published 03 November 2016).
Why we inspected:
This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure it provides safe and effective care. We will plan further inspections in the future.
A previous inspection took place on 17 February 2015 and the service was rated overall as ‘good’. There were no breaches of the Health and Social Act 2008 (regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
This unannounced inspection took place on 28 September 2016.
There was a registered manager in place during this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. Applications had been made to the local authorising agencies to lawfully restrict people’s liberty where appropriate. Staff were able to demonstrate an understanding of the MCA and DoLS to reduce the risk that people would not have their freedom restricted in an unlawful manner.
Plans were in place to minimise people’s identified risks and to assist people to live as independent and safe a life as possible. We found detailed records were in place as guidance for staff to monitor people’s assessed risks and health conditions.
People were supported by staff in a respectful and kind way. We saw that there were lots of positive interactions between staff and the people they supported. However, there were also some missed opportunities for staff to fully engage with the people they were assisting.
Arrangements were in place to support people with their prescribed medicines. People’s medicines were stored and disposed of appropriately. However, accurate records to document people’s medicines were not always kept.
When required, people were referred to and assisted to access a range of external healthcare professionals. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being.
People’s support and care plans gave detailed and individual prompts and guidance to staff on any assistance a person may require. They included the person’s wishes on how they were to be supported and their likes and dislikes. An activities co-ordinator and staff assisted people with their interests and activities and promoted social inclusion. People’s family and friends were encouraged to visit the home and staff made them very welcome.
Staff were trained to provide care and support which met people’s individual needs. The quality of staff members’ work performance was reviewed during supervisions and appraisals. This was to make sure that staff were deemed confident and competent by the registered manager to deliver people’s support and care needs.
Staff understood their responsibility to report any suspicions of harm or poor care practice.
There were pre-employment safety checks in place to make sure that all new staff were deemed suitable to work with the people they supported. There was a sufficient number of staff to provide people with safe assistance and care.
The registered manager sought feedback from people and their relatives. People who used the service and their relatives were able to raise any concerns or suggestions that they had with the registered manager and staff and feel listened to.
Staff meetings took place and staff were encouraged by the registered manager to raise any suggestions for improvement or concerns that they may have had. Quality monitoring processes to identify any areas of improvement required within the service were in place and formally documented any action required and taken.
Star Residential Home is a care home registered to provide accommodation, personal care and nursing care for up to 30 people. There were 25 people living at the home at the time of our visit. The home had internal and external communal areas, including a lounge, a lounge/ dining area, and a garden for people and their visitors to use.
This unannounced inspection was carried out on 17 February 2015 and was completed by one inspector. At our previous inspection on 30 September 2013 the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.
There was a registered manager in place. They had been in post since March 2012. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making and appropriate applications had been made to the authorising agencies for people who needed these safeguards.
People who lived in the home were supported by staff in a caring and respectful way that also maintained their safety. People had individualised health care and support plans in place which recorded their likes and dislikes, needs and wishes. These plans gave staff guidelines on any assistance a person may require as well as how to respect people’s choices and preferences.
Risks to people were identified by staff and plans put into place to minimise these risks and enable people to live as independent and safe life as possible.
There were arrangements in place for the safe storage, disposal, management and administration of people’s prescribed medication. Formal capacity assessments were in place for people given their medication disguised in their food and/or drink.
Staff cared for people in a patient way. Staff took time to comfort people who were becoming anxious in an understanding manner.
There were a sufficient number of staff on duty. Staff were trained to provide effective care which met people’s individual support and health care needs. Staff understood their role and responsibilities and were supported by the registered manager to maintain their skills through supervision, appraisals and training.
People and their relatives were able to raise any concerns or suggestions that they might have had with staff members or the registered manager.
There was an ‘open’ culture within the home and staff were supported by the registered manager.
People were encouraged to be included in the running of the home should they chose to do so.
The registered manager had in place an on-going quality monitoring process to identify areas of improvement required within the home. Where improvements had been identified there were actions plans in place which documented the action taken.
People who we spoke with said that they had noted the improvement to their lives as a result of these actions taken.
The majority of people's health and wellbeing needs were maintained and promoted. However, improvements are required to ensure that all of the people's wellbeing and health, including their physical and mental health needs, are safely and appropriately met.
People were provided with a sufficient amount of food and drink to meet their nutritional and hydration needs. People said that they had liked the food and were offered choices of what they would like to eat. We have made suggestions for improvements to be made regarding the quality in how people's nutritional and hydration needs are met.
People told us that the home was always clean and smelled fresh. They also said that they were satisfied with the standard and quality of the cleaning. Effective infection control systems were in place to minimise the health risk associated with acquiring infections.
There were effective systems in place to ensure that people who used the service, members of staff and visitors, were protected from the use of unsafe equipment and premises. Equipment was provided to meet people's health and comfort needs.
All of the people that we spoke with said that they knew who they would speak with if they were unhappy about something, but they had no cause to make a complaint. There was an effective system in place to respond to people's concerns or complaints.
All of the people that were spoken with, and who were able to verbally tell us, said that they liked living at the home and had no cause to complain. They liked the staff and had confidence in their ability to safely and appropriately meet people's individual support and care needs.
People were supported to maintain their health and their well being was promoted. Their individual support and care needs were provided by skilled and competent staff who had access to informative care records.
The home was a safe and well maintained place for people to live, work and visit.
People were safely cared for by adequately recruited staff who attended up-to-date training.
People were given opportunities to make suggestions to influence how the home was run and to improve the standard and quality of the service provision.