Archived: St James' Care Home (21)

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff were aware of procedures to follow if they felt people were at risk of harm. Relatives told us they had no concerns about the safety of people using the service. There had been no recent safeguarding concerns for people at the home. People were being cared for in an environment that was safe. Following a previous inspection, some broken furniture and condemned fire extinguishers had been replaced by the provider.

Is the service effective?

Relatives told us that staff invited them to annual care plan reviews. We noted that although care plans were person centred, there was inconsistency with some aspects of the care records being reviewed. For example, in some cases the Health Action Plan had not been reviewed in time but other aspects such as the annual reviews and daily records were. Relatives told us people's needs were met, comments included "staff take him to all his appointments" and "he gets visited regularly by the G.P."

Is the service caring?

Comments from relatives included "staff are understanding", "I am happy, satisfied", "he really likes it there" and "they are great with him." We spoke with staff who gave us examples of how they cared for people who used the service, treating them with respect.

Is the service responsive?

Where people did not have the capacity to understand decisions relating to their care we saw that best interest meetings were held to protect their rights. Advocacy support was provided to people that needed it. Service user meetings were held regularly in a format that was easy for people to understand and take part in.

Is the service well-led?

A new registered manager had recently been appointed at the home. Staff and relatives that we spoke with felt supported and involved in the running of the home.

We looked at four care plans during our inspection. Each person had specific risk assessments and individual support plans.

We checked the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for three people using the service. These were complete and signed by staff. The provider used tablet blister packs when administering medication, these correlated with the MARs that we saw during our visit.

The home was not adequately maintained. There were a number of broken fixtures and furniture throughout the home and it looked dated throughout.

Some of the care plans had not been updated recently. Other records were not fit for purpose, including daily record books and task sheets. Other records related to the care of people using the service were not regularly updated.

The care plans were person centred and were reviewed on a regular basis. Staff told us that they encouraged people to be independent, especially in things such as preparation of meals, and eating. We observed staff communicating with people patiently and effectively. The manager told us that people using the service "looked forward to going out" and took part in a number of different activities such as music, arts and crafts, day visits and swimming.

We looked at the staffing rotas and spoke to the manager about staffing levels. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. The manager told us 'I am happy with staffing levels'.

The garden, lounge, and kitchen and dining room were a good size. The communal areas were generally well maintained, although some of the walls were worn.