This inspection took place on 10 and 11 April 2018. The first day of inspection was unannounced. At our last inspection in December 2016 we rated the service good overall. Due to a number of concerns recently raised about the service we carried out this inspection to check the provider was still meeting all legal requirements.
Order of The Sisters of St Joseph of The Apparition, known as and referred to in this report as Lady of the Vale care home, is registered to provide nursing, personal care and accommodation for to up to 39 people in 35 single and 2 double bedrooms, some of which have en-suite facilities. The two double rooms were being used as single rooms and at the time of our inspection there were 35 people living at Lady of the Vale. There is a chapel on site which people living at the home can attend on a regular basis if they wish. The chapel is also open to members of the public. There is a convent in the same grounds however this is separate to the care home and did not form part of the inspection. The home is surrounded by mature gardens, which are accessible to people using the service.
Lady of the Vale is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 we spoke with told us there were enough staff available when they needed help and support and added that staff responded to their needs in a timely manner. Rotas we saw confirmed that sufficient staff were deployed to meet the assessed needs of the people using the service.
The home had effective systems for ensuring concerns about people’s safety were managed appropriately. Staff had received safeguarding training and all staff we interviewed were aware of the various types of abuse and could explain how they would act if they suspected abuse.
People felt they were safe. Care records contained individualised risk assessments and risk management plans and risks had been discussed with either the person or their relative.
The provider followed a robust recruitment and selection process to ensure staff recruited had the right skills and experience to meet the needs of people who lived in the home. All required functions of servicing and maintenance were undertaken either by staff employed by the service or by external contractors. Records were thorough and well maintained.
We identified an area of concern for people’s safety as the door on the first floor corridor could be opened. This meant that people who were mobile had access to the stairwell and could potentially injure themselves. Due to the risk posed to people’s safety a coded lock was fitted to the door during our inspection.
Systems in place for the receipt, storage and administration of medicines were robust and accurate. A GP from a local practice attended on a weekly basis, carried out reviews of medicines and care and dealt with any individual health concerns as identified by the home.
Changes were made in response to complaints and the registered manager learned lessons from complaints and took action to try and ensure these did not reoccur.
Staff gained consent from people before carrying out care and explained to them why their support was needed. Where people lacked capacity to consent, consent forms were included in care plans These were signed by a member of the person's family however the home was not always gaining consent in the correct way.
Concerns had been raised directly with the home in the form of complaints but this had not been addressed with all staff via the supervisions process. Supervision was not forward planned and several were overdue. This meant that supervision was not always effective nor was the policy being adhered to.
People’s nutritional needs were clearly noted in assessments and care plans, which also outlined the type of support people required to maintain good health. Where drink consistencies needed to be altered, for example when people had swallowing difficulties or were at risk of choking, this was also clearly documented.
Staff were aware of people’s needs regarding their diet and fluid intake and where required, monitoring charts were stored in people’s rooms. Two fluid charts we saw contained errors and were not calculated accurately.
The home was well decorated, light and airy. Notice boards around the home contained articles aimed at stimulating memories and creating discussion between residents. There was signage around the building to help people with dementia find their way around. People had memory boxes on walls outside their own bedrooms. Bedrooms we visited had been personalised to people's tastes. The grounds were spacious and fully accessible.
People living at the home and their relatives were very complimentary about the service and the calibre of staff providing support to people living at Lady of the Vale during the day. Concerns had been raised with the Care Quality commission however, that this high level of care was not always replicated at night.
Staff treated people with dignity and respect and knocked on bedroom doors prior to entering a room. We also heard staff asking people for their permission before providing care and support.
Care plans detailed how people liked to receive their care and specified likes and dislikes. Some had thorough personal histories to allow staff to get to know them better. People were given choices.
Some of the residents had chosen this particular care home because of its close links with the Catholic church. The home had a chapel attached which people could attend should they choose to. The home was not discriminatory towards people who were not Catholic and people of all faiths were welcome to live at the home.
Staff knew the residents well in terms of their likes and dislikes. People were well presented and told us they could have a bath or shower when they wanted. There was information on independent advocacy services on display in the foyer of the home.
Staff demonstrated knowledge of dignity and privacy issues and gave examples of how they respected people’s rights and wishes.
Prior to this inspection concerns had been raised about the service in relation to relatives visiting the home late at night. The original visitor’s policy had been reinstated and visitors were now welcome at all times of the day.
The care planning process was person centred and focused on the person as an individual, detailing choices and preferences. The home had an involvement strap line of “Nothing about me without me.” People were supported to make decisions about their care and their lives overall.
Faith was very important to people and the home supported and promoted people to maintain their faith. There was a chapel on site which was fully accessible to people living at the home and to members of the community. A service was held daily, with the exception of Saturdays. We could see that for some people, worship was an important and integral part of their lives.
An activities co-ordinator spent time with individuals in their rooms if they were not well enough to access activities held in communal areas. People were given the opportunity to take communion in their rooms. People and their relatives considered there was enough to do.
Following complaints the service initiated changes in procedures. The service valued complaints and used them as an opportunity to improve the service.
The home cared for people approaching the end of life and that support was extended to relatives and other visitors to the home. Leaflets produced by the home offered information and support to families about end of life and bereavement services.
There was a different management structure in place at this inspection. The nuns had passed oversight and management of the service to a company, Careport. A representative from the management company offered assistance and support to the registered manager.
There were systems in place to monitor accidents, incidents or safeguarding concerns within the home. However other audit mechanisms, for example the manager’s daily walk round, had not identified the anomalies we found in the recording errors within fluid charts. Staff had not been alerted to the poor practice and errors and not all staff had received adequate supervision.
Whilst the registered manager had oversight of the service there were some elements that had not been addressed and this had resulted in complaints being made to the service.
Through speaking with the care staff team, people who used the service, the administration and maintenance staff and members of the management team it was clear there was a strong team approach in the home. Every member of staff understood their role and how they could support the delivery of care.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities. The registered manager was aware of the pending changes to the data protection laws and was working to ensure practices were compliant with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
The company used various ways to obtain feedback from people using the service and their relatives so that the service could continuously improve. Based on people’s feedback from satisfaction surveys the home displayed a “You Said, We Did” poster which outlined what the home had done in response to feedback.
We identified two breaches in regulations at this inspection. You can see what