Archived: Ada Belfield House Care Home

Updated 31 December 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by a single 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 service

Service and service type

Care Homes

Ada Belfield House 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.

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 looked at key information we had received about the service since our last inspection. This included any notifications the provider is required to send us, to tell us about important events when they happen at the service. We sought feedback from professionals who work with the service and we contacted Derbyshire Health Watch. Health Watch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all of this information to help plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 12 people who used the service and six relatives, about their experiences of the care provided. We spoke with three care staff, including one senior, the registered manager, two deputy managers, a cook, a volunteer and two care apprentices. We observed how staff interacted with people and we looked at a range of recording relating to people’s care and the management of the service. This included, three people’s care records; medicines, staffing records and meeting minutes. We also looked at some of the provider checks of the quality and safety of people’s are and areas of care policy.

After the inspection

We asked the registered manager for additional information to help us validate the evidence we found at the inspection. This included staff training and quality assurance information.

Updated 31 December 2019

About the service

Ada Belfield House Care Home is a residential care home, providing personal care for up to 25 older adults, in one adapted building. Registered service bands include older people, dementia, mental health, sensory impairment and learning disability. At this inspection there were 23 older adults receiving care at the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service was well managed and led internally by the registered manager, to help ensure person centred, safe and effective care. But the provider’s external governance and oversight arrangements were not consistently sufficient or effective, to fully or consistently ensure this

Staffing, risk management and medicines arrangements for people’s care and related management checks, helped to ensure people’s safety at the service. People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. The provider took action when things went wrong at the service and referred to relevant authorities involved with people’s care when required to do so.

People’s care, environment and related equipment needs were met. Staff supported people to maintain or improve their health and nutrition as agreed with them and any external health professionals involved in their care. People were supported to have maximum control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The provider’s related policies and systems supported this practice.

Staff were effectively trained and supported to provide people’s care. Relevant information sharing for people’s care was standardised; to help ensure they received timely, consistent care as agreed with them, including when they needed to move between services.

People received care from kind, caring staff who ensured their dignity, equality and rights in their care. Staff knew people well; how to communicate with them and understood what was important to people them for their care. People were informed, involved and supported to understand, agree and make ongoing decisions about their care.

People received timely, personalised care that was tailored to their individual needs and wishes. This was provided in a way which helped to optimise people’s independence, inclusion and engagement in home life; with their friends and family and local community as they chose. People who were living with a life limiting illness were effectively consulted, informed and supported for their end of life care.

People and their relatives were informed and confident to make a complaint or raise any concerns about the service, if they needed to. People’s views and feedback were regularly sought. Findings from complaints and feedback were used to help inform and ensure any service improvements needed.

Management and staff understood their role and responsibilities for people’s care. There were effective arrangements for communication, record keeping and information handling at the service, along with relevant engagement and partnership working for people’s care and safety.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection The last rating for this service was Good (published May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. Please see the Well Led section of this full report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.