You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

This inspection was carried out on 14 November 2017 and was unannounced. At their last inspection on 14 March 2017, they were found to not be meeting the standards we inspected. This was in relation to management systems and the lack of activities meet people’s needs.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions is the service safe, effective, responsive and well led to at least good. At this inspection we found that they had made the required improvements and were meeting all the standards. However, there were some areas that needed further development. This was in relation to person centred activity planning, some quality systems and obtaining people’s views.

Roebuck Nursing Home 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. The service accommodates up to 61 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection there were 37 people living there as one of the three floors was not in use.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

People, relatives and staff were positive about the running of the home. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the home, listen to people and value staff. However, further development was needed to involve people in the running of the home and obtain their views. There was a complaints process which people knew how to use and were confident they would be acted upon.

People were supported in a safe and appropriate way and staff knew how to recognise and report any risks to people’s safety. There were sufficient staff who were recruited safely and were well trained and supported. Medicines were administered in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions. However, records needed to be consistently maintained.

People were encouraged and supported to make choices and staff worked in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness and were supported in accordance with their preferences and wishes. We found that confidentiality was promoted.

People received person centred care in relation to support needs. Further development was needed to help ensure activities always reflected people’s hobbies and interests. People and their relatives were involved in planning their care. People enjoyed a variety of food and were supported to live a healthy and balanced life.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

The service was safe.

People were supported in a safe and appropriate way.

Staff knew how to recognise and report any risks to people�s safety.

There were sufficient staff who were recruited safely.

Medicines were administered in accordance with the prescriber�s instructions. However, records needed to be consistently maintained.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were well trained and supported.

People were encouraged and supported to make choices and staff worked in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People enjoyed a variety of food and were supported to live a healthy and balanced life.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness.

People were supported in accordance with their preferences and wishes.

Confidentiality was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive.

People received person centred care in relation to support needs. Further development was needed to ensure activities always reflected people�s hobbies and interests.

People were involved in planning their care.

There was a complaint's process which people knew how to use and were confident they would be acted upon.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 19 December 2017

The service needed further development to be consistently well led.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the home, listen to people and value staff. However, these needed to be developed further and applied consistently in some cases.

People, relatives and staff were positive about the running of the home.

The ethos of the management and staff team was to put people's needs first.