Archived: Rushyfields Residential and Nursing Home

Updated 19 September 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 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 a comprehensive inspection. It took place on 23 August 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we were coming.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and a specialist advisor with a specialism in nursing and dementia care.

Before the inspection we reviewed other information we held about the service and the provider. This included previous inspection reports and statutory notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send to CQC within required timescales.

We contacted the local Healthwatch team and obtained information from the local authority commissioners for the service, the local authority safeguarding team, and the clinical commissioning group (CCG). Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

During our inspection we spoke with five people who lived at Rushyfield Residential and Nursing Home. We spoke with the regional manager, manager, a staff nurse/deputy manager, a nurse associate, a team leader, two care workers, one agency care worker, one catering assistant, the cook, administrator and activities coordinator. We also spoke with five relatives and two visiting healthcare professionals.

We looked around the home and made observations of people and staff interacting. 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 viewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. These included the care records of four people, medicine administration records, recruitment records of four staff, training and supervision records and records in relation to the management of the service.

Updated 19 September 2018

Rushyfield Residential and Nursing 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. It provides personal and nursing care for 41 people some of whom are living with dementia. The home is on three floors serviced by a lift. People receive care on two of these floors and the kitchen, laundry and staff room are on the lower floor of the home. When we inspected there were 36 people living at the home.

This inspection took place on 23 August 2018 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection in August 2017 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. The home was meeting the requirements of the fundamental standards.

People, relatives and staff felt the service was a safe place. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood how to identify and report it.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We received positive feedback about staff always being available when people needed them and staff were visible throughout our visit.

People received their medicine safely and were supported to access the support of health care professionals when needed.

Where risks were identified to people who used the service or to the environment these were assessed and plans put in place to reduce them. Accidents and incidents were analysed to identify trends and reduce risks.

People’s needs had been assessed both before and after their admission to identify their care needs.

Staff were well supported and received the training they needed.

People received a varied and nutritional diet that met their preferences and dietary needs. The service provided home-made food and drinks which were adapted for different diets.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us they thought the service was caring. We received some examples of the service being very caring in the way it supported people and their relatives.

People told us, and we observed, that care was delivered with dignity and respect and people were supported to be as independent as possible.

Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s needs and preferences. Care plans were evaluated regularly and included meaningful information about people’s needs.

People were actively engaged in a range of activities and had opportunities to access the wider community.

People told us they did not have any concerns about the service but knew how to raise a complaint if needed. Feedback on the service was encouraged in a range of ways and was positive.

The management team were approachable and they and the staff team worked in collaboration with external agencies to provide good outcomes for people. Processes were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided and drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.