This inspection took place on 2 and 3 February 2016 and was unannouncedRevitalise Netley Waterside House is one of three centres provided by Revitalise Respite Holidays, a national charity providing respite care in a holiday setting for people living with either a physical disability, learning disability, sensory impairment or dementia. The service provides 24 hour nursing care for those that need this. The service can accommodate up to 39 people, although at the time of our inspection there were 35 people staying. Thirteen of these were companions and therefore not receiving care. Two people lived at the centre permanently. Most people booked to come to the service for a week’s break and would either come alone or with their main carer. The aim was that during the break, the carer also had respite from their role and was able to take a relaxing break. People staying at the service were referred to as guests and their carers as companions so throughout the remainder of the report we have used the same terminology. The provider operates a large residential volunteering programme and so in addition to permanent staff; guests were also cared for by a number of long and short term volunteers.
The guests staying during our inspection had all booked to attend a specialist stroke week which was being provided in conjunction with The Stroke Association. This was the first time that this particular specialist week had been run at the centre. Additional one day training had been provided for all staff on caring for stroke survivors, including communication techniques.
The service had a registered manager. 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. Throughout this report the registered manager is referred to as the ‘manager’.
Improvements were needed to ensure that all of the risks to guest’s health and wellbeing were adequately assessed and planned for. Risk assessments were not routinely used to provide additional guidance for staff about how they should manage guest’s particular needs.
Risks at service level were not always managed safely. Harmful substances were not always stored securely and we found a fire door wedged open. Parts of the environment or equipment used by guests were not always clean and well maintained.
Guest’s medicines were not always managed safely. Most medicines were safely stored. However, we were not assured that medicines were always stored within their recommended temperature ranges. We were also concerned that medicines were secondary dispensed by staff when some guests went on excursions. Information to support the administration of medicines was variable, for example, allergy information was recorded. However, additional information about ‘how I take my medicine’, ‘if required’, and ‘variable doses’ was not available. A care plan was not available to support one guest whose health could rapidly deteriorate.
We could not be assured that staff were receiving regular supervision and staff did not have all of the training relevant to their role.
The provider was not complying with their responsibilities in relation the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. There was a reliance upon asking the guests companion to consent to the care plan or make decisions on behalf of the guest. This is not in keeping with the principles of the MCA 2005.
Improvements were needed to ensure that the admissions and care planning process incorporated a consideration of whether a guest had capacity to consent to the stay, and whether any aspects of the care being provided might amount to a deprivation of that guest’s liberty. There was a risk that when guests were admitted, staff would not have a sufficient understanding of their individual needs and how these should be met.
Complaints were not always responded to in a timely manner. The provider was already making improvements to address this.
We could not therefore be assured that the systems in place for identifying and driving improvements were effective and the provider had not ensured that staff had access to policies and procedures which provided appropriate and up to date instruction to staff.
People were positive about the food provided and there was information available about the guests likes and dislikes, which enabled staff to plan to menu around guests needs and wishes.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and guests told us they felt safe and that the staff were kind and caring. We observed a number of positive and warm interactions between guests and staff. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the meaning of dignity and how this encompassed all of the care provided to each guest.
Guests were supported to take part in a range of activities both within and outside of the home.
The manager had cultivated positive relationships with guests and the staff team and the organisation was committed to actively seeking the engagement and involvement of guests and staff in developing the service.
We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.