We are responding quickly to a small number of concerns raised by CQC at our last inspection
"Staff were dedicated and wanted the best for people in their care" |
|
At the recent inspection in August 2016 CQC found that:
The service was caring. We were introduced to people during our visit and we spent time observing them in their home. The atmosphere was relaxed and people appeared comfortable and confident in their surroundings. People told us they were 'happy and looked after well'. One person said, "I couldn't be happier, everyone cares about me and they all do their very best". Written comments received in surveys included, "The entire staff ooze with love and really care for those lucky souls in their charge", "To date my relative has been overwhelmed by the real care and attention she has the joy
to experience from all staff" and, "I feel mum is very well looked after in every way".
We read compliments that people living in the home had made about individual staff. Staff were referred to as 'angels and little gems' and, 'really nice and very warm'. An agency nurse had recently covered a shift and left a compliment in the book. They wrote, "I couldn't believe how friendly staff were, they were very cheerful and interacted well with residents, it was a lovely atmosphere to work in".
We asked staff what they thought they did well and what they were proud of. Comments included, "We are always here to help them but it's equally important that we also support what they can do for themselves and not take away their independence", "Respecting people as individuals and making sure their choices and preferences are respected" and, "It's all the little things, the time we spend with them, our approach and making them feel special". One relative had recently sent a thank you card to staff which read, "Since moving in my relative has seemed happier than they have been in a
long while. His general attitude to life has improved and he seems very settled, thank you for all you have done it's such a weight off our minds".
During our visits we saw staff demonstrating acts of patience and kindness. Mealtimes were a good example where staff promoted an atmosphere that was calm and conducive to dining. We observed staff speak sensitively to people, they described the meal they served, repeatedly offered drinks and asked if everything was satisfactory. People who required help with eating and drinking were supported with dignity and respect. One staff member was assisting a gentleman with their meal, they asked the person if they wanted their clothes protected and they replied 'yes'. The clothes protector was made of cloth and the design was a man's shirt, tie and waistcoat. This was a positive way of protecting people's clothes from spillage without the person feeling undignified or childlike.
There were some lovely examples of staff supporting people to maintain their existing relationships with people important to them. One person wanted to attend their granddaughters wedding. Staff took the person shopping for their wedding outfit and a staff member offered support by attending the wedding with the person. One staff member told us they 'couldn't wait to see the photographs'. They also told us about how they had taken a 'resident on regular trips to the hospital to visit their
loved one who was unwell'.
There was an ethos of an extended family within the home. Relatives always felt welcome and the manager told us that many relatives continued to visit the home even when their loved ones had passed away. One relative was now a regular volunteer. On the day of our visit the manager and several staff members were attending a funeral for a person they had recently lost. The staff were very touched when they returned and it was evident that they had been very fond of the person and, had forged good relationships with the family. Their dedication and care had been acknowledged at the funeral.
One person had recently reluctantly moved from the home because they wanted to be near friends, their church and in an area they had lived in for over 50 years. The family wrote their thanks and gratitude to the staff and said, "It is with heavy heart we are moving mum, we would like to thank you for your professionalism, patience and support and for taking such good care of her".
Inspection carried out on 9 August 2016
This inspection took place on 9 August 2016 and was unannounced. There were no concerns at the last inspection in May 2013. Edgemont View Nursing Home provides accommodation for up to 21 people. At the time of our visit there were 19 people living at the service.
There was a manager in post but they were not registered. 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 home responds: Unfortunately the Manager has been unable to complete her registration due to a technicality. We are working to resolve this as quickly as possible.
Despite the views of people and their relatives, improvements were required in a number of areas. People were not protected from the risk of cross infection. This was because appropriate guidance had not been followed. People were not cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Monitoring of the quality of the service was not always effective.
The home responds: The home has dedicated a number of additional hours every day to ensure that standards of cleanliness and hygiene have been raised and the risk of cross infection reduced.
The manager and staff followed procedures which reduced the risk of people being harmed. Staff understood what constituted abuse and what action they should take if they suspected this had occurred. Medicines were managed safely and staff followed the services policy and procedures.
The provider's recruitment policy and practices helped to ensure that suitable staff were employed. The manager and staff were able to demonstrate there were sufficient numbers of staff with a complementary skill mix on each shift.
People moved into the service only when a full assessment had been completed and the manager was sure they could fully meet a person's needs. People's needs were assessed, monitored and evaluated. This ensured information and care records were up to date and reflected the support people wanted and required.
Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. People were helped to exercise choices and control over their lives wherever possible. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 best interest decisions had been made. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were understood by staff and appropriately implemented to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected.
People received a varied nutritious diet, suited to individual preferences and requirements. Mealtimes were flexible and taken in a setting where people chose. Staff took prompt action when people required access to community services and expert treatment or advice.
References were made by relatives and staff about the 'family atmosphere and homely feel'. Staff were knowledgeable about people they supported and it was clear they had built up good relationships. Family and friends had completed surveys this year and expressed their gratitude to staff and the services provided.
The manager had settled in to their role and had started to look at how they would continue to improve the service for people and staff. The service was important to them and they wanted the best for people. There was an emphasis on teamwork and unity amongst all staff at all levels.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These are
particularly aimed at the relationship between the provider and the home.
The provider visited the home but did not complete a formal audit and they did not capture where improvements were required. Their visits needed to be more robust in order to support people who used the services. Often during their visits they would rely on hearsay rather than checking things out for themselves. Auditing of the service and facilities was not effective or sufficient. During their visits the provider was not actively seeking the views of people, relatives, staff, visiting
professionals or commissioners about their experience and the quality of care delivered by the service.
The home responds: The provider has instituted a formal visit procedure which will incorporate all the points raised above and will maintain records of findings.
The full report is available to download below:
The service was caring. We were introduced to people during our visit and we spent time observing them in their home. The atmosphere was relaxed and people appeared comfortable and confident in their surroundings. People told us they were 'happy and looked after well'. One person said, "I couldn't be happier, everyone cares about me and they all do their very best". Written comments received in surveys included, "The entire staff ooze with love and really care for those lucky souls in their charge", "To date my relative has been overwhelmed by the real care and attention she has the joy
to experience from all staff" and, "I feel mum is very well looked after in every way".
We read compliments that people living in the home had made about individual staff. Staff were referred to as 'angels and little gems' and, 'really nice and very warm'. An agency nurse had recently covered a shift and left a compliment in the book. They wrote, "I couldn't believe how friendly staff were, they were very cheerful and interacted well with residents, it was a lovely atmosphere to work in".
We asked staff what they thought they did well and what they were proud of. Comments included, "We are always here to help them but it's equally important that we also support what they can do for themselves and not take away their independence", "Respecting people as individuals and making sure their choices and preferences are respected" and, "It's all the little things, the time we spend with them, our approach and making them feel special". One relative had recently sent a thank you card to staff which read, "Since moving in my relative has seemed happier than they have been in a
long while. His general attitude to life has improved and he seems very settled, thank you for all you have done it's such a weight off our minds".
During our visits we saw staff demonstrating acts of patience and kindness. Mealtimes were a good example where staff promoted an atmosphere that was calm and conducive to dining. We observed staff speak sensitively to people, they described the meal they served, repeatedly offered drinks and asked if everything was satisfactory. People who required help with eating and drinking were supported with dignity and respect. One staff member was assisting a gentleman with their meal, they asked the person if they wanted their clothes protected and they replied 'yes'. The clothes protector was made of cloth and the design was a man's shirt, tie and waistcoat. This was a positive way of protecting people's clothes from spillage without the person feeling undignified or childlike.
There were some lovely examples of staff supporting people to maintain their existing relationships with people important to them. One person wanted to attend their granddaughters wedding. Staff took the person shopping for their wedding outfit and a staff member offered support by attending the wedding with the person. One staff member told us they 'couldn't wait to see the photographs'. They also told us about how they had taken a 'resident on regular trips to the hospital to visit their
loved one who was unwell'.
There was an ethos of an extended family within the home. Relatives always felt welcome and the manager told us that many relatives continued to visit the home even when their loved ones had passed away. One relative was now a regular volunteer. On the day of our visit the manager and several staff members were attending a funeral for a person they had recently lost. The staff were very touched when they returned and it was evident that they had been very fond of the person and, had forged good relationships with the family. Their dedication and care had been acknowledged at the funeral.
One person had recently reluctantly moved from the home because they wanted to be near friends, their church and in an area they had lived in for over 50 years. The family wrote their thanks and gratitude to the staff and said, "It is with heavy heart we are moving mum, we would like to thank you for your professionalism, patience and support and for taking such good care of her".
Inspection carried out on 9 August 2016
This inspection took place on 9 August 2016 and was unannounced. There were no concerns at the last inspection in May 2013. Edgemont View Nursing Home provides accommodation for up to 21 people. At the time of our visit there were 19 people living at the service.
There was a manager in post but they were not registered. 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 home responds: Unfortunately the Manager has been unable to complete her registration due to a technicality. We are working to resolve this as quickly as possible.
Despite the views of people and their relatives, improvements were required in a number of areas. People were not protected from the risk of cross infection. This was because appropriate guidance had not been followed. People were not cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Monitoring of the quality of the service was not always effective.
The home responds: The home has dedicated a number of additional hours every day to ensure that standards of cleanliness and hygiene have been raised and the risk of cross infection reduced.
The manager and staff followed procedures which reduced the risk of people being harmed. Staff understood what constituted abuse and what action they should take if they suspected this had occurred. Medicines were managed safely and staff followed the services policy and procedures.
The provider's recruitment policy and practices helped to ensure that suitable staff were employed. The manager and staff were able to demonstrate there were sufficient numbers of staff with a complementary skill mix on each shift.
People moved into the service only when a full assessment had been completed and the manager was sure they could fully meet a person's needs. People's needs were assessed, monitored and evaluated. This ensured information and care records were up to date and reflected the support people wanted and required.
Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. People were helped to exercise choices and control over their lives wherever possible. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 best interest decisions had been made. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were understood by staff and appropriately implemented to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected.
People received a varied nutritious diet, suited to individual preferences and requirements. Mealtimes were flexible and taken in a setting where people chose. Staff took prompt action when people required access to community services and expert treatment or advice.
References were made by relatives and staff about the 'family atmosphere and homely feel'. Staff were knowledgeable about people they supported and it was clear they had built up good relationships. Family and friends had completed surveys this year and expressed their gratitude to staff and the services provided.
The manager had settled in to their role and had started to look at how they would continue to improve the service for people and staff. The service was important to them and they wanted the best for people. There was an emphasis on teamwork and unity amongst all staff at all levels.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These are
particularly aimed at the relationship between the provider and the home.
The provider visited the home but did not complete a formal audit and they did not capture where improvements were required. Their visits needed to be more robust in order to support people who used the services. Often during their visits they would rely on hearsay rather than checking things out for themselves. Auditing of the service and facilities was not effective or sufficient. During their visits the provider was not actively seeking the views of people, relatives, staff, visiting
professionals or commissioners about their experience and the quality of care delivered by the service.
The home responds: The provider has instituted a formal visit procedure which will incorporate all the points raised above and will maintain records of findings.
The full report is available to download below:
| edgemont_view_nursing__home_inspection_report.pdf |