Caldene Rest Home

Updated 16 July 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector, a nursing 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.

Service and service type

Caldene Rest Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

What we did: Before the inspection, we reviewed relevant information we had about the service, including any notifications of safeguarding or incidents affecting the safety and wellbeing of people. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We checked the last inspection report and contacted the local authority for information.

The service completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what it does well and any improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection, we spoke with five people living at the home, five relatives, five staff members, the registered manager, the nominated individual and a representative from the provider. Most people using the service were living with dementia or illnesses that limited their ability to communicate and tell us about their experience of living there. 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 speak with us and share their experience fully. We reviewed six people’s care records, including assessments, staff files, records of accidents, incidents and complaints, audits and quality assurance reports.

Updated 16 July 2019

Caldene Rest Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 27 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. They were also registered with CQC to provide nursing care but when we arrived to begin the inspection, we were told they did not currently provide nursing care due to difficulty in recruiting nurses. The registered manager confirmed there was no one with nursing needs living at the home. During our inspection, 20 people were living at the home and two people were in hospital.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were positive about their experience of living at the home. For example, one person said, “I’ve got a nice room upstairs and I am quite happy here. The people treat me well.” A visitor said, “I recommend this home.”

People were safe with attentive staff who ensured they used their walking aids. There was a stable caring staff group. People continued to be supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity. Staff relationships with the people they assisted continued to be caring and supportive. People's nutritional needs were met, and people praised the quality of the food. Care plans for each person held information about their dietary needs and their likes/ dislikes.

Risk assessments identified when people could be at risk. They covered people's physical and mental health needs and the environment they lived in. Care staff were recruited to suit the caring values of the service and recognised the importance of team work to provide consistent and safe care. People were protected from abuse because staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities.

People were supported by staff who completed appropriate training and understood their needs. Staff spoke confidently about the care they delivered and affectionately about the people they supported. They understood how they contributed to both people’s physical health and mental wellbeing.

Referrals were appropriately made to health care services when people’s needs changed. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services, which ensured they received on-going healthcare support. Medicine administration, recording and auditing was safe.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Information was in place to ensure people’s legal rights were protected.

The management team, through regular reviews, unannounced spot check visits and observations of staff practice, ensured people received a good quality service. Feedback from people using the service and quality assurance records showed this had been achieved.

Rating at last inspection (and update):

The last rating for this service was Good (published December 2016). At this inspection, the rating remained the same.

Why we inspected: This inspection was scheduled for follow up based on the last report rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about the service. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk