Archived: Turnpike Court Residential Care Home

Updated 26 September 2017

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 took place on 26 July 2017 and was unannounced, the registered manager was not available at our inspection so we spoke with them on the telephone on 1 August 2017 to gather further information. The inspection team consisted of one inspector 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.

As part of the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications that had been submitted. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also spoke with the local authority about information they held about the provider.

We spoke with ten people who used the service and one relative. We spoke with three care staff and one domestic staff. We also spoke with the home service manager, a registered manager from the provider’s sister home who supported staff during the inspection, and the registered manager via telephone.

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 reviewed a sample of people’s care records and medication records. We also looked at provider audits, complaints and compliments and incident and accident audit.

Updated 26 September 2017

This inspection took place on 26 July 2017 and was unannounced, which means the provider did not know we were coming. We found the service required improvement with three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Turnpike Court Residential Care Home provides personal care and accommodation for up to 30 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 26 people who were living at the home on the day of our visit.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection visit; however the registered manager was not available on the day of our inspection visit. A registered manager from the providers other service came to support the inspection visit. We spoke with the registered manager on the telephone on the 1 August 2017. 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.

Staff recognised signs of abuse and knew how to report this. Risk assessments were not always completed properly, which meant that actions needed to keep people safe and minimise risks were not always identified and acted upon. People felt that more staff were needed to meet their needs, we found that while this was the case, there were enough staff on duty to keep people safe.

Staff supported people with their consent and agreement. Staff understood and recognised the importance of this. We found people were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet and with enough fluids to keep them healthy. We found that people had access to healthcare professionals, such as their doctor when they required them.

People told us that staff treated them kindly and respected their privacy. However we saw an example where a person was not treated with dignity. People told us that their wishes were not always met as staff did not have the time to devote to them.

People did not always receive care that was responsive to their individual needs as people had to wait for staff to become available to support them. Where people had specific individual needs, staff had not always recognised this to ensure their care reflected their personal preferences.

Information on how to raise complaints was provided to people, and people knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. We looked at the providers complaints over the last eight months and found that two complaints had been received and responded to with satisfactory outcomes.

People did not always feel included and listened to in the way the service was run. There were not effective systems in place to ensure the risks to people were being managed safely. Whilst the provider had identified areas for improvement around risk management, the registered manager had not learnt from this to improve practice, so people received consistently safe care.