Archived: Ingersley Court Residential Care Home

Updated 12 July 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 checked whether the provider was 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.

The inspection took place on 9 and 13 June 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service including notifications and information received from members of the public. We also invited the local authority to provide us with any information they held about Ingersley Court Residential Care Home.

We used information from a Provider Information Return (PIR) which the service had returned in April 2016. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make. We used this information to help to plan our inspection. We also looked at all of the information which the Care Quality Commission already held on the provider. This included previous inspections and any information the provider had to notify us about. Furthermore, we invited the local authority to provide us with any information they held about Ingersley Court Residential Care Home. We took any information they provided into account.

As part of our inspection we spent time talking with people who were living at the home. Eighteen people were able to share their views with us.

We also spoke with the acting manager and home service manager. Additionally, we spoke with four other members of staff including two team leaders, one care assistant, and the maintenance person.

We undertook a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) observation during lunch time. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at a range of records including: three care plans; four staff files; staff training; minutes of meetings; rotas; complaint and safeguarding records; medication; maintenance and audit documents.

Updated 12 July 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 9 June and 13 June 2016.

The service was previously inspected in February 2014 when it was found to be meeting all the regulatory requirements which were inspected at that time.

Ingersley Court Residential Care Home is a purpose built care home for older people. It is located in the village of Bollington, near Macclesfield, within easy reach of the local community. The home has capacity to accommodate 34 people.

Ingersley Court Residential Care Home has 32 single rooms, including 19 with en-suite facilities. There is also one double bedroom. All rooms have television points and 13 have a telephone line. As well as the care home services, Ingersley Court Residential Care Home also has some attached accommodation for older people consisting of eight self-contained one bedroom flats over two floors.

The home has a number of communal spaces, including two dining spaces, lounges, a conservatory, games room and wheelchair accessible gardens and a patio area to the rear of the home with tables and chairs.

Thirty two people were being accommodated at the time of the inspection.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager at Ingersley Court Residential Care Home. 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.

The registered manager was not in day to day charge of the service when we inspected Ingersley Court Residential Care Home. An acting manager had been assigned to oversee the management of the home.

The acting manager was present during our inspection and engaged positively in the inspection process. She was observed to be friendly and approachable and operated an open door policy to people using the service, staff and visitors. During the inspection we found Ingersley Court Residential Care Home to have a warm and relaxed atmosphere and overall people living in the home appeared happy and content.

During this inspection, we identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to Safe Care and Treatment and Good Governance. You can see what action we told the registered provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Feedback received from people using the service spoken with was generally complimentary about the standard of care provided. People living at Ingersley Court Residential Care Home told us the acting manager was approachable and supportive.

People's needs had been assessed before they went to stay at the home. However, the dependency assessment tool used to assess the level of people’s needs did not accurately reflect the people’s current needs.

The service lacked governance systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service. For example, effective systems to audit care plans and medicines were not robust.

Medicines were not being managed effectively. For example, we found one person’s controlled drugs had not been recorded correctly.

The registered provider had policies and systems in place to manage risks and safeguard people from abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing policy and they told us they would use it if required. Staff told us they were able to speak with the manager if they had a concern.

We observed the lunchtime meals and saw staff supported people appropriately and in an unhurried way. People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks, which they told us they enjoyed. There was flexibility in what people chose to eat and when.

Staff were supported through induction, regular on-going training, supervision and appraisal. A training plan was in place to support staff learning. Staff told us they were well supported in their roles and responsibilities. There was however, no training provided in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Corporate policies were in place relating to the MCA (Mental Capacity Act (2005) and DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards). We found staff were aware of the people using the service who were subject to a DoLS.

Staff recruitment systems were in place and information about staff had been obtained to make sure staff did not pose a risk to people using the service.

Staffing levels were structured to meet the needs of the people who used the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs.

People and staff were encouraged to attend meetings with the acting manager at which they could discuss aspects of the service and care delivery. People were asked for feedback about the service to enable improvements to be made.

A process was in place for managing complaints and the home's complaints procedure was displayed so that people had access to this information. People and relatives told us they would raise any concerns with the manager.

Records showed that people also had access to GPs, chiropodists and other health care professionals (subject to individual need).