Archived: Read House

Updated 15 December 2020

The inspection

This was a targeted inspection to check whether the provider had made improvements relating to concerns we had identified about Infection Prevention and Control (IPC).

As part of this inspection we looked at the IPC measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Read House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 sought feedback from the local authority and other professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in their IPC action plan on the improvements they were going to make. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 13 members of staff including the nominated individual, registered manager, acting care manager, senior care workers, care workers and a domestic assistant. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. We spoke with four relatives of people who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We also spoke with a visiting healthcare professional.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and a number of people’s risk assessments. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including quality audits, health and safety records, incident and accident logs and policies and procedures were also reviewed.

Updated 15 December 2020

The inspection took place on 2nd May 2018 and was unannounced.

Read House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Read House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people who are blind or visually impaired or older people with physical disability. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 32 people using the service.

At the last inspection in 2016, the service was rated good. At this inspection, we found the service had maintained good.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

People were safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. Staff that had been trained and assessed as competent to administer medicines managed medicines safely and there were sufficient numbers of care staff with the correct skills and knowledge to safely meet people’s needs.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and are required to report on what we find. The MCA sets out what must be done to make sure the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected. The DoLS are a code of practice to supplement the main MCA code of practice. Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act.

People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink to ensure their dietary nutritional needs were met. The service worked well with other professionals to ensure that people’s health needs were met. People’s care records showed that, where appropriate, support and guidance was sought from healthcare professionals.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

People were encouraged to follow their interests and hobbies and to engage in meaningful person centred activities. They were supported to keep in contact with their family and friends. People’s care plans were individual and contained information about people’s needs, likes and dislikes and their ability to make decisions.

The service was brightly decorated and stimulating for the people living there. The communal areas were decorated to a high standard were clean and furnished giving an overall homely feel. The outside area had accessible gardens with benches and easy access for people with limited mobility.

People received support that was personalised and tailored to their needs. They were aware of how to complain and there were a number of opportunities available for people to give their feedback about the service.

There was an open culture and the management team encouraged and supported staff to provide care that was centred on the individual.

The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service and take the views and concerns of people and their relatives into account to make improvements to the service.