Archived: Rugby Care Centre

Updated 9 January 2015

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 was 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.

We inspected this service on 4 November 2014. The inspection was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. 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.

We also reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at information received from relatives, from the local authority commissioners and the statutory notifications the manager had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority.

During the inspection we spoke with five people who lived at the home and one relative. We spoke with the manager, the regional manager, the deputy manager, a senior member of care staff and a care assistant. We observed care and support being delivered in communal areas and we observed how people were supported to eat and drink at lunch time.

Many of the people living at the home were not able to tell us, in detail, about how they were cared for and supported because of their complex needs. However, we used the short observational framework tool (SOFI) to help us to assess if people’s needs were appropriately met and they experienced good standards of care. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed two people’s care plans and checked the manager’s monitoring records of two people’s daily care and support. We reviewed three staff files to check staff were recruited safely and trained and supported to deliver care and support appropriate to each person’s needs. We reviewed management records of the checks the manager made to assure themselves people received a quality service.

Updated 9 January 2015

We inspected this service on 4 November 2014. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in June 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 29 people who may have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection 15 people lived at the home. The service had a registered manager. 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.

We found the provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to minimise risks to people’s safety. The manager assessed risks to people’s health and welfare and wrote care plans that minimised the identified risks. Staff understood people’s needs and abilities because they read the care plans and worked alongside experienced staff.

Staffing levels were decided according to people’s needs and abilities. This ensured there were enough staff to care for and support people with their physical and social needs. The manager made all the appropriate checks on staff’s suitability to deliver personal care during the recruitment process.

The manager checked that the premises were well maintained and equipment was regularly serviced to minimise risks to people’s safety.

The medicines administration policy and procedures were known to and understood by staff. Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely because staff acted in accordance with the policy and procedures.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was under a DoLS at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their relation’s best interests.

All the people we spoke with told us they were happy at the home. They told us the staff were kind and helped them to maintain their interests and involvement in the local community. We saw staff understood people who were not able to communicate verbally and supported them with kindness and compassion.

People’s care was planned to meet their individual needs, abilities and preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed and staff asked other health professionals for advice and support when people’s health needs changed.

The provider’s quality monitoring system included regular checks of people’s care plans, medicines administration and the quality of care that people received. Accidents, incidents and falls were investigated and actions taken to minimise the risks of a re-occurrence.

People who lived at the home and relatives had confidence in the manager and the staff. They told us the quality of care was good and their suggestions, comments and complaints were listened to and responded to appropriately.