This unannounced inspection took place on 06 June 2018. Codnor Park was registered by CQC on 22 December 2016 and this was the first time we had inspected this service.Codnor Park 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.
Codnor Park provides care and support for up to 40 older people, some of who may be living with dementia. The premises had been adapted and consisted of two floors which included bedrooms, a main lounge, garden room, dining room and an activities room. At the time of our visit there were 23 people using the service.
There was a registered manager post in. 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.’
We found that regular audits by the registered manager had identified areas of the environment that needed attention to ensure that people’s needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of the service. However, the provider had failed to address the identified areas of concern. During this inspection we found the same issues in relation to the environment as identified by the audits. For example, areas of the ceilings were stained brown and in some areas ceiling tiles were missing, exposing pipe work. In one corridor the carpet join had frayed and this had been stuck back down with duck-tape causing a potential trip hazard. In some en-suites and communal toilets the flooring had come away from the wall making it difficult to clean and some toilets needed to have the flooring sealed around the base.
In several bedrooms the carpets were stained and there was an unpleasant odour. Windows in many of the areas of the service had condensation in the pains obscuring peoples view to the outside. Concerns and dissatisfaction about how long it took for maintenance work to be carried out had been raised by people using the service, relatives and staff.
These issues were a breach of Regulation 15: Premises and Equipment. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Systems and processes in place to monitor the environment were not effective to ensure actions were taken in a timely manner. Environmental audits identified areas for improvement, however these issues had not been addressed swiftly by the provider.
People felt safe at the service and staff knew how to protect them from potential harm. Staff monitored people’s well-being and took preventative action to keep them safe. There were enough staff on duty to support people and meet their needs. Staff supported people with their medicines and this was done safely. Staff were trained in infection control and wore PPE (personal protective equipment) to reduce the risk of the spread of infection or illness.
People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. The staff were well-trained and knowledgeable. Staff assisted people with their meals and made sure people had enough to eat and drink. People’s healthcare needs were met and staff referred them to healthcare professionals where necessary. People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice
The staff were caring and kind and had developed good relationships with people using the service. They engaged with people and welcomed their relatives and friends when they visited. Staff respected people and supported them to make choices about their care, support and any individual needs they might have including cultural, religious, and those relating to disability. People told us staff treated them with dignity.
Staff provided people with individualised care that met their needs. Care plans were personalised and written in conjunction with the person themselves and others involved in their care. They included information about people’s life histories which enabled staff to get to know people and take an interest in their lives. Staff encouraged people to socialise and to join in with activities and events that took part on the premises and provided assistance for them to do this where necessary.
Staff were trained in equality and diversity and information was provided to people in formats that were accessible to them. The service had a complaints procedure and if a person made a complaint they were listened to and their concerns taken seriously.
People were satisfied with the care and support provided. Staff said they liked working at the service because they were well supported by the registered manager and their peers. People, relatives, and staff had the opportunity to comment on the service through surveys, meetings and one-to-one discussions.