Paddock Hill is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people. Accommodation is based over three floors. Two floors are dedicated to supporting people living with Dementia. All of the bedrooms are single. Communal lounges and dining rooms are provided on each floor. A passenger lift is available to provide access to each floor. The home has a garden and car park.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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.
Our last inspection at Paddock Hill 12 August 2013. The home was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.
This inspection took place on 24 March 2015 and was unannounced. On the day of our inspection there were 37 people living at Paddock Hill.
People told us they felt well cared for and safe. Comments included, “It’s smashing; my room, the food, the staff. It’s all good,” “I feel very safe here. If I have any worries I can talk to them [staff],” “It’s much better here. I like all the staff but some know me better, they are all respectful” and “I don’t think it could be any better. I have nothing to complain about.”
Whilst people living at Paddock Hill told us they felt safe, we found that systems required by regulations to ensure the safe handling, administration and recording of medicines were not always followed, to keep people safe. In addition, we found the provider had not always undertaken all the checks required to make sure people who worked at Paddock Hill were suitable to be employed. This posed a risk to peoples safety.
People told us they felt well cared for by staff that knew them well. However, we found that the provider did not have systems in place to ensure people’s care and welfare was protected.
We found care plans had not been consistently reviewed and some held information that did not reflect staffs understanding of the person. Staff held conflicting views of some people’s support needs. Staff were not consistently adhering to guidance set out in some care plans to ensure people’s welfare was promoted. Some confidential records were found insecurely stored in several areas of the home.
Staff were provided with relevant induction and training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. They received supervision and appraisal for development and support. Staff spoken with understood their role and what was expected of them. Staff told us they worked well together and enjoyed their jobs.
The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who may not be able to make important decisions themselves.
People had access to a range of healthcare professionals to help maintain their health. A varied and nutritious diet was provided to people that took into account their individual dietary needs and preferences so that health was promoted and choices could be respected.
People living at the home, and their relatives said that they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.
We saw people participated in a range of daily activities which were meaningful and promoted independence.
There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to. However, these audits had not identified the gaps and inconsistencies found during this inspection, so they could be acted upon and improved. This showed the audits undertaken were not fully effective. People using the service and their relatives had been asked their opinion via surveys, the results of these had been audited to identify any areas for improvement.
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 the report.