Archived: Tynedale Promoting Independence Centre

Updated 14 June 2016

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 29 February and 1 March 2016 and day one was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. The visit was undertaken by an adult social care inspector, a specialist advisor 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.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the home, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. Information from the local authority safeguarding adult’s team was also reviewed. They had no negative feedback on the service.

During the visit we spoke with nine staff including the registered manager, seven people who used the service and six relatives or visitors. Observations were carried out at a mealtime and during an activity, and a medicines round was observed. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also spoke with four external professionals who regularly visited the service.

Five care records were reviewed as were nine medicines records and the staff training matrix. Other records reviewed included safeguarding adult’s records and deprivation of liberty safeguards applications. We also reviewed complaints records, four staff recruitment/induction and training files and staff meeting minutes. We also checked people’s weight monitoring records, internal audits and the maintenance records for the home.

The internal and external communal areas were viewed as were the kitchen and dining areas, offices, storage, skills kitchen and laundry areas and, when invited, some people’s bedrooms.

Updated 14 June 2016

This was an unannounced inspection which took place over two days on 29 February and 1 March 2016. The service was last inspected in September 2014 and was meeting the regulations in force at the time.

Tynedale Promoting Independence Centre is a residential care home that provides respite, short break and assessment for up to 6 weeks. Accommodation and personal care is provided for up to 27 older people, prior to them moving to a permanent placement, or returning to their own homes. Nursing care is not provided. There were 20 people living there at the time of inspection.

There was a registered manager who had been in post since 2009. 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 told us they felt safe living at the service and that staff knew how to act to keep them safe from harm. The building and equipment were well maintained and there were regular health and safety checks undertaken by staff.

There were enough staff to meet people sometimes complex needs and the staff were trained, supervised and supported to effectively meet their needs. The service had a number of vacancies but was using existing staff to cover shifts.

Medicines were managed well by the staff and people received the help they needed to take their medicines safely. Where people’s needs changed the staff sought medical advice and encouraged people to maintain their well-being. External healthcare professional’s advice was sought appropriately.

People were supported by staff who knew their needs well and how best to support them. Staff were aware of people’s choices and how to support those people who no longer had the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Families felt the service was effective and offered them reassurance that their relatives were being well cared for. Where decisions had to be made about people’s care, families and external professionals were involved and consulted as part of the process.

People were supported to maintain a suitable food and fluid intake. Staff responded flexibly to ensure that people maintained their physical wellbeing and worked with people as individuals.

Staff were caring and valued the people they worked with. Staff showed kindness, empathy and humour in responding to people’s needs. Families felt their relatives were cared for by a staff team who valued them and would keep them safe.

Privacy and dignity were carefully considered by the staff team, who ensured that people’s choices and previous wishes were respected. Our observations confirmed there was genuine empathy and warmth between staff and people living at the home.

People who were receiving end of life care had their needs appropriately assessed. Professional advice was sought where needed to promote advance care planning

The service responded to people’s needs as they changed over time, sometimes responding promptly to sudden changes in people’s needs. The service supported people to access appropriate support so the staff could keep them safe and well.

The registered manager led by example, supporting staff to consider new ways to meet people’s needs. The registered manager regularly consulted families and staff to look for ways to improve the service and audits and reviews of care delivery were carried out.