Background to this inspection
Updated
14 March 2018
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 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.
The inspection was prompted in part by anonymous allegations about poor incontinence care and poor staffing.
The unannounced inspection was completed by an 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 care service.
Before the inspection we looked at previous reports and notifications. Notifications are information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also looked at a Provider Information Return (PIR).This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
During the inspection we spoke with13 people and four relatives. 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 spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, two activities coordinators, a volunteer, two care staff and the chef. We also spoke with three healthcare professionals who came to see people during the course of the inspection.
We reviewed five staff recruitment files, ten supervision records and personal development plans, staff meeting minutes and residents meeting minutes. We looked at 15 medicine administration records, five staff medicine observation records. We looked at six care records, four DoLS authorisations, incident and accident records from October 2017 to January 2018, maintenance records, health and safety checks, night checks and staff rotas.
After the inspection we received two emails from professionals letting us know their experience of the service.
Updated
14 March 2018
The unannounced inspection took place on 8 February 2018. At the last inspection in May 2016 the service met all legal requirements and was rated “Good”. During this inspection the service remains “Good”.
Pinewood is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Pinewood accommodates 54 people across five separate units, each of which has separate adapted facilities. One of the units specialises in providing care to people living with dementia. On the day of our visit there were 54 people using the service.
On the day of our visit the registered manager took us around. 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 and they trusted staff who looked after them. They told us they were treated with dignity and respect and that their privacy was respected.
Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of the guidelines in place to recognise and report abuse. The registered manger ensured all safeguarding actions were completed and lessons were learnt.
Medicines were managed safely by staff that had been assessed as competent.
People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidelines were followed. Risks to people were monitored and appropriate risks assessments were in place and known by staff in order to support people safely.
People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs most times. We found robust recruitment methods in place to ensure only staff that had undergone the necessary checks were employed.
Staff were supported by means of supervision and regular meetings. They were supported to develop further if they wished to progress within their career. They were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and how they applied it in practice.
People were supported to maintain a balanced diet that met their individual preferences. They were supported to access health care services where required in order to maintain their health.
Activities were based on people’s preferences and included regular outings to various places of interest and pet therapy and entertainers.
People told us they were able to complain and felt their complaints were listened to.
Care plans were person centred. However, we found they were not always reviewed in a timely manner and made a recommendation to ensure there were robust systems in place to ensure all care records were up to date and completed properly.
People, their relatives and staff thought the service was well led by an approachable registered manager. There were robust systems in place to ensure the quality of care delivered was monitored and improved.