Archived: Rossmore Nursing Home

Updated 8 April 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 registered 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.

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 24 and 25 February 2015. The inspection was undertaken by two adult social care inspectors 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.

The service was last inspected July 2014 and was found to be none compliant with some of the regulations inspected at that time.

The local authority safeguarding and quality teams and the local NHS were contacted as part of the inspection, to ask them for their views on the service and whether they had any ongoing concerns. We also looked at the information we hold about the registered provider.

During our inspection we observed how the staff interacted with people who used the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) in the dining room and the lounge. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with 12 people who used the service and six staff; this included care staff and the cook. We also spoke with the registered manager and the registered provider.

We looked at four care files which belonged to people who used the service, four staff recruitment files, training records and other documentation pertaining to the management and running of the service.

Updated 8 April 2015

This was an unannounced inspection undertaken on the 24 and 25 February 2015.

The service was last inspected on the 21 and 25 July 2014 and found to be none compliant with some of the regulations looked at.

Rossmore Nursing Home is a series of converted large terraced houses in a residential area of Hull, close to local amenities and public transport. Nearby on street parking is available, however, this is permit parking and limited during specified hours of the day.

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide care for up to 56 people who require nursing care and maybe living with dementia. The service also provides, in conjunction with Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, a stroke rehabilitation service.

At the time of the inspection there were 35 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Following the last inspection the registered provider was found to be none compliant with regulations pertaining to infection control and cleanliness of the building. Since the last inspection the registered provider had changed the way the domestic staff worked and they now monitored the building and undertook daily audits of the cleanliness of people’s rooms and communal areas. Domestics also came on duty during the evening to clean communal areas such as the lounges. Improvements had also been made to the décor of people’s bedrooms. This meant people who used the service lived in a well maintained and safe environment.

Following the last inspection the registered provider was found to be none compliant with regulations pertaining to staffing levels and staff training. Following the previous inspection the registered provider had increased staffing levels and made sure enough staff were on duty to meet people’s needs. The registered provide had also improved the training the staff received and had provided more specialists training. Staff training was monitored as part of the auditing processes in place. This ensured people were cared for by staff who were provided in enough numbers and had the right skills to meet their needs.

Following the last inspection the registered provider was found to be none compliant with regulations pertaining to the administration of people’s medicines. Since the last inspection the registered provider had put systems in place which addressed the issues identified at the last inspection; these were ensuring people received their medicines on time, employing senior staff who took responsibility for administering medicines along with the nursing staff and improvements to the training staff received. This meant people received their medicines on time and as prescribed by their GP.

Following the last inspection the registered provider was found to be none compliant with regulations pertaining to the way complaints were dealt with. The registered provider had put systems in place which addressed the issues identified at the last inspection; these were, recording what the complaint was, how it had been investigated and whether the complainant was satisfied with the way the complaint had been investigated. The registered provider’s complaint procedure had been revised and displayed around the service. This meant people who used the service, or any others who had an interest in the care and wellbeing of the people who used the service, were able to raise concerns and complaints about the quality of the service and these were investigated and resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction wherever possible.

Following the last inspection the service was found to be none compliant with regulations pertaining to the way the service was monitored and audited. The registered provider had implemented a range of audits which ensured the service was safe a well-run; these included environmental audits, staff training audits and care plan audits. People who used the service, their relatives, staff and visiting health care professionals had been asked for their views about how the service was run, their views had been collated and action plans put in place to address any shortfalls identified.

People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely and understood the importance of reporting any abuse they may witness or become aware of. People’s needs had been recorded; these were detailed to help staff care for them as they would like and prefer. Assessments were in place which ensured people were not exposed to unnecessary risk in their daily lives. People’s human rights were protected by staff who had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were provided with a wholesome and nutritional diet which was of their choosing. People’s dietary intake was monitored and staff made referrals to health care professionals when required. People’s weight was monitored on a regular basis; people were supported to lead a healthy lifestyle and to access their GP and other health care professionals when they required.

A range of activities were provided for people to choose from and they were supported to access the local community.

People had good relationships with staff who understood their needs and staff were sensitive and caring when undertaking their duties. Staff respected people’s choices and supported them to lead a life style of their own choosing.