Archived: Forget Me Not Residential Home

Forget Me Not is a care home that was providing personal care to 14 predominantly older people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 16 people.

People’s experience of using this service:

The registered manager and staff used innovative ways to meet people’s support needs and went the extra mile to provide safe care and support. The registered manager worked closely with the GP and other healthcare professions to ensure the service responded to people’s changing needs safely and effectively. People’s care was highly personalised and matched their needs, which promoted their wellbeing and improved their quality of life.

People told us staff were very caring. Staff consistency and commitment enabled people to receive excellent care from staff who knew them well. People had access to a variety of personalised activities to prevent social isolation and promote their wellbeing. Events were provided that matched people’s personal histories and interests and where possible, people’s wishes were granted.

People living at Forget Me not received safe care from skilled and knowledgeable staff. People told us they felt safe receiving care from the service. Staff fully understood their responsibilities to identify and report any concerns. The provider had safe recruitment and selection processes in place.

Risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were very well supported to maintain good health and to meet their nutritional needs.

Forget Me Not was well-led by a registered manager who continually looked for ways to improve people’s lives. Staff culture was compassionate and caring and this had resulted in the provision of some exceptional care. The service had a clear management and staffing structure in place. Staff worked well as a team and had a sense of pride working at the service. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

Rating at last inspection:

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. Our last report was published in December 2016.

Why we inspected:

This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The registered manager has been registered since October 2010. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our previous inspection on 25, 26 and 27 November 2014 we found documentation relating to fire evacuation records were not clear. The service's fire training and evacuation log only recorded fire safety training staff had undertaken. There was no specific detail as to when the evacuations drills had occurred and the outcomes. The service did not always act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Advance care

plans used to capture people’s preference for end of life care before their health deteriorated, were developed after some people’s health had deteriorated. The service did not follow legal requirements to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of incidents that occurred in the service.

During this visit we found the service had made the required improvements in those shortfalls identified at the previous inspection.

People were positive about the caring nature of staff. One person commented, “I am quite comfortable with the support I get from staff. Staff are always cheerful. I don’t feel under pressure from any of them.” People were relaxed in their environment and we observed positive interaction between staff and the people they provided care and support to. People’s privacy and dignity was protected and they were actively involved in decisions made in regards to their care.

People and their relatives felt the service was safe. People were protected from the risk of harm because staff were fully aware of their responsibilities in regards to safeguarding. We reviewed all safeguarding incidents reported to the Local Authority and to us by the service and found they had been appropriately responded to in line with legislation. People’s personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise identified risks.

Staff were appropriately inducted, trained and supervised. People were supported to have enough food and drink. Where people were at risk of malnutrition appropriate action was taken. People’s health care needs were monitored and any changes in their health or well-being prompted referrals to their GP or other health care professionals.

People and their relatives felt the service was responsive. One person commented, “They (staff) are very good at responding to needs promptly.” Reviews of care meetings enabled people and their relatives to discuss the care and support delivered and gave them the opportunity to make any necessary changes. Peoples’ social needs were met because the service had a scheduled program of social activities that prevented social isolation.

People and their relatives were positive about the management of the service. Comments included, “From what we have seen it is always good” and “A good team that works well together.” Quality assurance systems were in place to improve the quality and safety of people who used the service. This included audits that covered areas such as medicine, infection control, and other records relating to the running of the service. This enabled the service to identify where quality or safety was being compromised and take appropriate action. The service sought the views of people and those who represented them and responded appropriately to feedback received.

People we spoke with said there were enough staff and they had enough time to care for them. Training records viewed showed the two new staff members had undertaken appropriate training and had obtained relevant qualifications in health and social care. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

We found people could be confident their comments and complaints were listened to and dealt with effectively because the service had an effective system to investigate and resolve complaints.

Care plans included a range of risk assessments, covering for example risks associated with falls and weight loss, together with details of how these were to be eliminated or managed.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe in the home. They said they would raise any concerns they had with their family, care staff, the manager or provider.

All of the staff we spoke with told us they felt very well supported by the manager and provider. They all commented favourably about the excellent 'team spirit' there was in the home. The basic staffing level at night did not provide the number of staff indicated as necessary for the routine care and support of at least one person.

When we spoke with people living in the home, they told us they could raise any concerns or discuss their care with staff, the manager or provider whenever they wanted to. We saw people living in the home as well as visitors going to the office and sitting down to talk to the manager in a relaxed and informal manner.