This comprehensive inspection took place on 19 July 2017 and was unannounced. This was the first rated inspection of the service since the provider re-registered the home with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in July 2015 following a change to the company name. We previously inspected the service in January 2015 and rated it as ‘Good’.St. Anne’s Care Home is a large three storey property overlooking the seafront at Whitley Bay and is close to the local amenities. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people who may also be living with a physical disability or a dementia related condition. Nursing care is not provided. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people using the service.
The established registered manager was still in post. 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 that they felt safe living at St. Anne’s with the support from the staff. There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff demonstrated that they were knowledgeable about what action they should take if they suspected people were at risk of harm. The local authority informed us that were no concerns regarding the service.
Records were kept up to date regarding accidents, incidents and near misses. These were recorded, investigated and reported in a timely manner to other relevant authorities such as the local authority or CQC as necessary.
The service managed risks associated with the health, safety and well-being of people, including completing regular checks of the property, equipment and utilities in line with their legal responsibilities. People’s individual care needs related to aspects of daily living had been risk assessed and these were frequently reviewed.
Medicines were managed and administered safely and medicine administration records were organised, detailed and correct. Medicines were stored in a safe and secure place. Staff followed a strict policy and procedures regarding the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.
There was a sufficient level of staff deployed to safely meet people’s needs. Staff records showed a robust recruitment process was in place and staff had been safely recruited. Staff training was up to date, and they were supported in their role by the management team through regular supervision and appraisal sessions.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have the ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. It also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. In England, the local authority authorises applications to deprive people of their liberty. We found the service was complying with legal requirements and applying the principals of the MCA.
Nutrition and hydration needs were met. We observed people received a choice of wholesome meals which were prepared by the catering team. People had choice around mealtimes but often ate one of the planned meals from the menu at a set time in the communal dining room. We saw people could chose an alternative meal, time and room if they preferred and individual dietary requirements were fulfilled. The service had involved external health professionals as necessary to meet people’s changing needs and to support their general health and welfare.
People’s individual health and social care needs had been assessed and a person-centred support plan was in place. We saw these were reviewed regularly to ensure staff were aware of people’s current needs.
An activities coordinator was employed at the service and we saw a wide variety of activities on offer which people and their relatives enjoyed. One-to-one and group activities were promoted to reduce social isolation amongst people. Visitors were welcomed into the home at any time.
The registered manager told us how complaints were investigated and managed. Records confirmed this was done in a timely manner. The complaints procedure was on display and had been shared with people, relatives and external professionals. The service had received many compliments and ‘Thank you’ cards.
We heard a lot of positive comments about the staff. They were described as kind, caring and considerate of people’s needs. People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was maintained. The registered manager and deputy manager were very visible and involved in delivering care to people.
The management team conducted regular quality assurance checks. These were overseen by a representative from the provider’s organisation. These included daily, weekly and monthly checks of care monitoring tools to ensure people received high quality, appropriate care which met their needs. Regular staff meetings took place to ensure there was consistent and effective communication.
Surveys had been recently issued to gain the opinion of people, staff, relatives and professionals about how the service was managed and how it could be improved. We saw there had been an overall positive response to the survey and the results of which had been sent to the provider for evaluation and publication. Staff spoke highly of working at the home and they told us they felt valued and appreciated by the management team.