Rochester Care Home

Updated 9 October 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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The 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

Rochester Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with CQC. 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.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection-

We spoke with 15 people and six relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 11 staff including care staff, catering staff, domestic staff, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We also spoke with two visiting health care professionals.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records, associated risk assessments and multiple medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection –

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.

Updated 9 October 2019

About the service

Rochester Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care and support for up to 56 older people. The Napier Unit provides respite care for up to eight people with complex physical and learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were 53 people living in Rochester Care Home and six people on respite stays in Napier Unit. Rochester Care Home is divided into four separate wings, Bishop Obo, Bishop Gundulf, King John and King Henry.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People, relatives and staff told us the service was exceptionally well-led. The registered manager led by example and promoted an open, inclusive culture where people, their relatives and staff were all valued for their individuality. Since the last inspection they had built, developed and sustained a caring and committed staff team. The registered manager and staff were dedicated to making sure people were empowered to remain independent for as long as possible. Visions and values were promoted and shared throughout the staff team who worked cohesively to provide high-quality care and support. There was a strong emphasis on continuous improvement and views of people and their relatives were highly valued.

People felt safe. They were supported by staff who understood how to keep people safe, how to report concerns and how to reduce risk. People were protected from discrimination and their life-choices were respected. There were enough staff in each area of the service and people told us staff spent quality time chatting with them. The staff had been recruited safely. People had their medicines when they needed them, and medicines were managed safely.

People’s physical, mental health, emotional and social needs were regularly assessed and reviewed. Care plans were kept up to date with people’s changing needs and preferences. People told us they were involved in planning their care and support. People were supported by a staff team who were skilled and knowledgeable. Staff were supported to complete regular training and additional qualifications to keep up to date with best practice. Staff felt valued and supported by the registered manager and the provider.

People were offered choices of home-made meals and plenty to drink to make sure they ate a balanced, healthy diet and stayed hydrated. People really enjoyed their meals which were social occasions. People were involved in setting tables and washing up when they wanted to be.

People had access to health care professionals when needed. Staff worked closely with GPs, community nurses and the local dementia team to ensure people stayed as healthy as possible. 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.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. People said, “This is the place I always wanted to come to and I am very happy here” and, “This is a very good home. Staff get on well together and help each other out. They are always laughing and joking with us”. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted.

People and their relatives did not have any complaints. They knew how to raise a complaint if needed. They had confidence the registered manager would resolve any concerns quickly if necessary. The registered manager actively sought feedback from people, relatives, health care professionals and staff to monitor the quality of service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (report published 28 February 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

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