Archived: Elizabeth Welsh

Updated 16 March 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 was planned to check 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.

This inspection was took place on the 11 February 2016 and was carried out by two adult social care inspectors.

A Provider Information Return (PIR) had not been received in respect of this service. However, after checking our records we were unable to trace a PIR being sent to the provider. A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This document would have provided us with the key information about the service and its plans for the future.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We also sought the views of the commissioners of services and health and social care professionals who came into contact with the service. We looked at the information we held about notifications sent to us about any accidents or incidents affecting the service and people living there. We looked at the information we held on safeguarding referrals, concerns raised with us and applications the manager had made under deprivation of liberty safeguards.

As part of the inspection we looked at records relating to the use of medicines and assessed medicine management, storage, administration and disposal. We looked at a total of four care plans.

During our inspection we spoke to five people who lived in Elizabeth Welsh House and two relatives who were visiting the home during our inspection. We spoke to two members of the care staff team, two supervisors and the cook. We spent time with the registered manager and toured the building looking at the environmental standard of the home. We also spoke to the operations manager responsible for this service as he was in the building during the latter part of our inspection.

We observed the interactions between the care staff and the people they supported in all parts of the building. We looked at care plans and records held containing details of the systems used to monitor the provision of care and operation of the service.

Updated 16 March 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 11 February 2016. We last inspected Elizabeth Welsh House in September 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

Elizabeth Welsh House is a purpose built care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people. It is situated on the outskirts of Carlisle with a direct bus link into the city.

The bedrooms are for single occupancy and there is plenty of communal space for residents to enjoy. The home has three units each of which has bedrooms and a lounge with a dining area. There are toilet and bathing facilities in all parts of the home and a lift to access the upper floor.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who lived in Elizabeth Welsh House told us they felt safe living in the home. Relatives told us they were very satisfied with the safety of their family members. Relatives also said they were pleased with the support and caring attitude of all the staff.

People were protected by staff who knew how to keep them safe and managed individual risks well. Staffing levels were appropriate during the day and the service now employed three members of night staff that were currently necessary to meet the needs of those using the service and to promote their independence. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

We spent time with people in all areas of the home. We saw that the staff offered people assistance and took the time to speak to people and take up the opportunities they had to interact with them and offer reassurance if needed. We saw that the staff approached people in a friendly and respectful way and people we spoke to who lived there told us that it was a “comfortable” place to live to live in.

The registered manager provided details of the staff training that evidenced staff training was up to date although some updates were being planned to ensure all the staff were completely up to date and able to provide the correct level of care and support. Staff confirmed they received training appropriate to their roles within the staff team.

People had access to external health care services which ensured their health care needs were met. Staff had completed training in safe handling of medicines and the medicines administration records were now up to date following a medicines inspection in August of last year.

People were provided with sufficient food and drink in order to maintain good levels of nutrition and hydration. Drinks were available throughout the day. People told us “We have a choice of meals and if there is anything we don’t like we can ask for something else”. Only one person was less than happy with their meals and we did discuss this with the registered manager.

Medicines were being safely, administered and stored and we saw that accurate records were being kept of medicines received and disposed of so all of them could be accounted for.

We saw evidence that staff recruitment and selection was robust and guaranteed only suitable people were employed to care for and support people using this service.

There was an appropriate internal quality audit system in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

People knew how they could complain about the service they received and information about this was displayed in the foyer area of the home. People we spoke to were confident that action would be taken in response to any concerns they raised. People told us they felt comfortable giving their views about the service and what they wanted in their home. Relatives told us that if they had cause to complain about anything, and that was rare, the matter was dealt with as soon as possible.