We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Old Rectory Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Old Rectory Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
The Old Rectory Care Home is a residential care home providing support with personal care to 30 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 30 people. The care home accommodates 30 people in one adapted building.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service was exceptionally well-led. This was confirmed by people who lived at the home, their relatives, healthcare professionals and staff. The provider’s high standards and ethos had been embraced and adopted by the staff team. All staff were proud to work at the home and were committed to providing people with the highest standard of care. The was an open and inclusive ethos and a commitment to learning and improving the service. People were at the heart of the service and their views were valued.
People were supported by exceptionally kind and compassionate staff who ensured they were fully involved in decisions about their care. People were treated with the upmost respect and their right to privacy was understood and respected by staff. People were supported to remain as independent as possible.
People and their relatives told us they received a service which exceeded their expectations. Staff went the extra mile to ensure people received truly person-centred care. Staff were extremely responsive to people’s needs and went to great lengths to ensure people felt valued and had opportunities for social stimulation. People felt very confident and comfortable to discuss any concerns with staff. People could be truly confident that their wishes for end of life care would be respected by staff.
People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. Risks of abuse to people were minimised because the provider carried out pre-employment checks on all new staff. People told us staff were always kind and we saw people were very relaxed and comfortable.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People said staff always asked for their consent before helping them.
People had their needs assessed and were supported by staff who had the skills and experience to meet their needs. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being and worked with other professionals to make sure they received the care and treatment they needed. People’s nutritional needs were met and everyone we spoke with was happy with the food and drinks provided.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was outstanding. (Report published 4 April 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The Old Rectory is a care home registered to provide accommodation for up to 31 people who require personal care. On the day or our inspection there were 30 people living at the home.
There was a registered manager in post and they were present at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, registered managers 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. The registered manager was also one of the two providers who owned the home.
People were supported by staff who knew how to keep them safe and free from the risk of harm. They knew how to recognise and report any risks, problems or potential signs of abuse. Risks were assessed and managed safely whilst promoting people’s independence. People were protected by safe systems in place for administering, storing and recording medicines.
People were supported by sufficient staff to meet their needs safely and effectively. People received flexible and responsive support. Staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices meaning that only people suitable to work in the role were appointed.
People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide effective support. They received good training opportunities and training had been developed around the individual needs of the people who used the service. Staff competency was regularly reviewed and knowledge was updated to ensure it continued to reflect current best practices and legislation. Staff felt very well supported by the registered manager and their colleagues.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and worked well as a team to ensure people’s needs were met. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff understood how to protect people’s human rights. The registered manager and the staff team were committed to offering a service that was centred on people’s individual needs. People were offered choices as to how they lived their lives and staff recognised the importance of people making their own decisions
People enjoyed a variety of nutritious, home cooked meals that met their individual dietary requirements and preferences. Mealtimes were a relaxed and sociable experience for people. People were offered choices and alternatives. Drinks were readily available throughout the day.
Staff worked with healthcare professionals when required to ensure people’s continued good health and wellbeing. A healthcare professional told us that they considered that the staff delivered very high standards of care and support. This joint working ensured people’s needs were met consistently and efficiently.
People were supported by staff who were extremely kind and caring. People enjoyed positive relationships with staff based on mutual respect and trust. Staff knew how people liked to be supported and provided care with a smile and sensitivity. People’s privacy and dignity was always respected. People were valued and their views and opinions were always sought and acted upon. Visitors were made welcome and people were supported to keep in contact with people who were important to them.
People enjoyed an excellent range of activities both in and out of the home. Activities were developed around the preferences, likes and hobbies of the people who used the service. Staff recognised the importance of social engagement and contact meaning that people could enjoy full and active lives. Staff were creative in developing activities designed around people’s abilities. This meant that everyone had opportunities to enjoy a full social life. Parties and social events brought people together and strong external links made the home very much part of the local community.
People who used the service, their friends and relatives, shared information effectively with the registered manager and the staff team to ensure they received a responsive service. People had opportunities to speak with staff formally and informally to review their care and support and make changes if necessary.
People told us they were able to raise concerns and felt these would be acted on by the registered manager. The provider had a system to deal with any complaints. People were regularly asked if they were happy with the service provided. There were systems in place to ensure that people’s views and opinions were heard and their wishes acted upon.
The registered manager provided strong and effective leadership. There was an open culture within the home where the people who used the service were put at the heart of everything. Without exception, everyone we spoke with told us that the leadership and the service provide at the Old Rectory was excellent. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Surveys, questionnaires and audits all reflected that the service delivered an extremely high quality of individualised care.
People told us they were fully involved in planning their care. They said staff knew them and their individual needs well. Care plans showed that people's needs had been assessed, and these assessments had been regularly updated. The manager told us, 'We provide a very high standard of care here'. This was reflected in discussions held and observations we made.
People told us they felt very safe living at The Old Rectory. The staff demonstrated a good understanding of abuse. People told us they had not observed any poor practice and knew how to report any concerns.
We found staff had developed positive working relationships with the people in their care. People described the staff as, 'Absolutely superb' and, 'Wonderful caring people'. We saw that staff were patient and caring when they supported people. People considered staff were knowledgeable and skilled in their work. Staff told us they were provided with good training opportunities and were well supported in their work.
There were arrangements were in place to monitor the quality of the service.
We saw that people were well presented and wore clothes that reflected their own preferences, style, and gender. We found that people were involved in making care and treatment choices throughout the day. We found that staff promoted people's independence in different ways. One person said, 'I choose everything myself, they don't tell you what to do.'
We found that people's care records provided an overview of people's needs and preferences. We saw positive interactions between staff and people living at the home. One person told us, 'They really look after us here.'
We found that arrangements were in place to ensure that people were safeguarded from abuse.
We found that appropriate checks were taken before staff began work. Records showed that recruitment processes were effective.
We found that arrangements were in place to start monitoring the quality of the service. All the people we spoke with told us they knew how to complain although they had no concerns. One person said, 'I would speak to the owners, but I have nothing to complain about.'