Pax Hill Residential Home EMF Unit

Updated 24 February 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 9 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 24 February 2021

Pax Hill Residential Home EMF Unit 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.

Pax Hill Residential Home EMF Unit accommodates up to 26 people with dementia. At the time of our inspection, 15 people were living there. The building had been extensively renovated and areas had been newly built. The building had been thoughtfully furbished using published research into colours suitable for people with a dementia. There were three floors, which provided a mix of communal areas and individual bedrooms.

At our last inspection we rated the service requires improvement in safe and good in all other areas. This meant the service was rated Good overall. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements to staff recruitment and provide appropriate training where staff did not have a good command of English. We also undertook a focussed inspection on 15 June 2017 and found the provider was meeting legal requirements. At this inspection, we found the requirements around recruitment continued to be met. At this inspection we found the service to be Requires Improvement in Well-Led and Good in all other areas. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good.

Recruitment, staffing, medicine management, infection control and upkeep of the premises protected people from unsafe situations and harm.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and discrimination. They knew to report any concerns and ensure action was taken. The registered manager worked appropriately with the local authority safeguarding adults team to protect people.

Staff were trained and supported to be skilled and efficient in their roles. They were very happy about the level of training and support they received and showed competence when supporting people.

The premises provided people with a variety of spaces for their use with relevant facilities to meet their needs. Bedrooms were very individual and age and gender appropriate.

Staff promoted people’s dignity and privacy. Staff provided person-centred support by listening to people and engaging them at every opportunity. Staff were very kind and caring and people using the service were calm.

Support plans were detailed and reviewed with the person when possible, staff who supported the person and family members. Staff looked to identify best practise and used this to people’s benefit. Staff worked with and took advice from health care professionals. People’s health care needs were met.

People had a variety of internal activities (such as music therapy) and external activities which they enjoyed on a regular basis.

Relatives’ views were sought, and opportunities taken to improve the service. Staff were supervised, supported and clear what was expected of them.

Audits and checks were carried out in-house, but had not identified the shortfalls we found. Staff needed training about restraint. Although staff knew people well, people did not have clearly written Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans and staff had not taken part in emergency evacuations. We also found the registered manager had informed Public Health England about a suspected outbreak of Norovirus but did not notify the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager took immediate action to address these shortfalls.

People’s legal rights were understood and upheld. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the ethos of the home supported this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.