Priceholme

Updated 20 April 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.

This inspection took place on 15 and 21 February 2018. The first day of inspection was unannounced; we announced our visit on the second day of inspection.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector 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 Expert by Experience had experience of caring for older people.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service. We examined notifications received by the Care Quality Commission. Notifications contain information about changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally required to send us. We spoke with the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams. We also contacted the local Healthwatch. Healthwatch are a consumer group who champion the rights of people using healthcare services.

The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This document had been completed prior to our visit and we used this information to inform our inspection.

During the inspection we walked around the home and observed communal areas and, with permission, looked in people’s bedrooms. We observed interactions between staff and people who used the service including at lunchtime and during activities.

We reviewed three people's care files and three medication administration records. We looked at three staff files relating to recruitment and training and a range of records relating to the management of the service. We spoke with six people who used the service and two relatives of people who used the service. During the inspection, we spoke with four care staff, the activities co-ordinator and the registered manager.

Updated 20 April 2018

Priceholme is owned and managed by Methodist Homes and provides personal care and support for up to 33 people who are elderly and may be living with a dementia. There were 31 people living at the service when we visited. Priceholme 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.

We inspected the service on 15 and 21 February 2018. The visit on day one was unannounced and the second day of inspection was announced.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe, respected and well cared for. Staff showed a good understanding of the processes required to safeguard adults who may be vulnerable from abuse and they were able to explain to us what they would do if they had concerns. We observed staff knew the people they supported well and were able to recognise any changes to people’s physical and emotional health.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the management and staff of the organisation. We found evidence of complaints being made to the service and we saw that these were dealt with in a proactive manner. The service received a number of compliments and commendations which praised the staff and the service delivery.

The registered manager and provider was responsive to people's needs and regularly sought their opinions. This helped ensure people’s rights and diverse circumstances were respected.

Risks to people's health and safety had been identified and risk assessments were in place to identify and evaluate risks which are then managed with guidance for staff through associated ‘support plans’. Regular servicing of equipment, environmental safety checks and checks of services such as gas took place. People's medicines were managed safely.

Robust recruitment practices were in place which included obtaining references and completing Disclosure and Barring checks. This ensured only suitable people were employed.

We observed sufficient staff were deployed throughout the service to meet people's needs. Staff received appropriate training and support to carry out their role Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals from senior staff or management and they told us the manager was approachable and supportive.

Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act when providing support to people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Best interest decisions involved people’s representatives when required.

People told us they enjoyed the meals provided and were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet. Where needed, people's nutrition was monitored by staff. People had good access to healthcare professionals to support all of their health needs.

The environment supported people's needs and their personal space reflected their preferences and personalities. People's choices were taken account of when planning their care and they could choose how that care was delivered. Their end of life support needs were considered and planned for with the involvement of the person and their next of kin.

People’s needs were assessed and care plans reflected their care preferences and how they liked to spend their time. People were supported to engage in activities and where they had friends or family they were supported to maintain those relationships in a meaningful way.

Regular checks of all areas of the service were completed by the registered manager. There was good oversight from the provider who completed unannounced quality assurance checks to ensure the safe running and quality of the service.

We received consistently positive feedback from people who used the service, their relatives and friends, and visiting professionals.