Cornelius House

Updated 24 May 2018

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 provider is 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.

The inspection was planned as a routine comprehensive inspection. Prior to the inspection we contacted the local authority for feedback who gave positive reports about the leadership and service people received.

This inspection took place on 8 March 2018. The inspection was unannounced. The inspection was carried out 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 service. The expert by experience had knowledge of caring for older people.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service and contacted the local authority commissioners. We reviewed notifications of incidents that the provider had sent us since their registration. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to send us by law.

We reviewed the information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we met with 12 people who used the service and spoke with two visiting relatives for their views on the service. We reviewed people, relatives, staff and professional feedback during the inspection and comments left by people and relatives on a care home reviews website. We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, the provider and two care staff during the inspection.

We looked at five records which related to people’s individual care needs. We discussed staff recruitment processes with the registered manager, reviewed staff training and looked at the quality assurance processes used to review the quality of the care provided. We discussed complaints, safeguarding and incidents which had occurred within the home over the past 12 months, with the registered manager. We also reviewed policies and procedures, and the complaints process.

Following the inspection one health care professional provided feedback by email and three relatives contacted us to provide feedback. We received six questionnaires from relatives after the inspection.

Updated 24 May 2018

Cornelius House is a residential care home and accommodates a maximum of 20 people. On the day of the inspection there were 19 people living at the service, one person was in hospital. The home is a large Victorian property with a garden in the village of Fishbourne. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulated both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection.

This inspection took place on 8 March 2018. The inspection was unannounced. At the last inspection on 16 November 2016, the service was rated as Requires Improvement with concerns about the safety of medicine management and concerns about the leadership structure at the service. At this inspection we found there had been changes to improve the management structure at the service and medicine management was now safe. We found the service had improved from “Requires Improvement” to “Good”, with the caring domain rated as “Outstanding”.

Why the service is rated as Good:

There was a new 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 and their relatives told us staff were exceptionally dedicated, caring and kind. Staff demonstrated compassion for people through their conversations and interactions. They did special things which made people feel they mattered. Feedback about the caring nature and acts of kindness were excellent. Comments included, “Absolutely fantastic”; “Cared for in such as personal and loving way.” Another person told us, “Lots of my visitors have said what a lovely atmosphere it is here, they don’t feel they are coming into a home. I feel it’s my home; I go about just as I please. If you want anything sorted out you only have to speak to [staff name] and it’s done.”

People told us their privacy and dignity was promoted. People all said they were actively involved in making choices and decisions about how they wanted to live their lives. People were protected from abuse because staff understood what action to take if they were concerned someone was being abused or mistreated.

People received care which was responsive to their needs. People and their relatives were encouraged to be part of the assessment and care planning process. This helped to ensure the care being provided met people’s individual needs and preferences. Support plans were very personalised and guided staff to help people in the way they liked.

Risks associated with people’s care and living environment were effectively managed to ensure people’s freedom was promoted. People were supported by consistent staff to help meet their needs in the way they preferred. People’s independence was encouraged and staff helped people feel valued by encouraging their skills and involving them in decisions. The registered manager and provider wanted to ensure the right staff were employed, so recruitment practices were safe and ensured that checks had been undertaken. People’s medicines were safely managed and given to them on time.

People received care from staff who had undertaken training to be able to meet their unique needs. People’s human rights were protected because the registered manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People’s nutritional needs were met because staff followed people’s support plans to make sure people were eating and drinking enough and potential risks were known. People were supported to access health care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People were cared for in a service which was well maintained and invested in. The home was kept clean and smelled fresh. There was a range of activities which people enjoyed to help keep them stimulated and occupied.

Policies and procedures across the service were in place and available for people in different formats when required. People were treated equally and fairly. Staff adapted their communication methods dependent upon people’s needs, for example using simple questions and information for people with cognitive difficulties and information about the service was available in larger print for those people with visual impairments.

The service was very well led by the registered manager and provider and supported by a dedicated team. There were quality assurance systems in place to help assess the ongoing quality of the service, and to help identify any areas which might require improvement. Complaints and incidents were learned from to ensure improvement. The registered manager and provider promoted the ethos of honesty and admitted when things had gone wrong. The service kept abreast of changes to maintain quality care.