Archived: Pelham House

Updated 6 January 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 29 October 2014 and was unannounced. It was carried out by a single inspector. Before the inspection, we reviewed information we had about the service such as notifications the service were required to send to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).  

During our inspection we spoke with four people who lived in the home, one relative, two senior care workers, three care workers and the registered manager. We observed care and support in communal areas. To do this we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We looked at the care records for five people. We also looked at other records that related to how the home was managed.

After the inspection we spoke with a further three relatives and asked them for their views and experiences of the service.  

Updated 6 January 2015

This inspection took place on 29 October 2014 and was unannounced. Although Pelham House had previously been inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the home was taken over by a new provider, The Abbeyfield Society in November 2013. This was the first inspection of the home since that date.

Pelham House is a medium sized care home which provides accommodation for up to 25 people who require personal care and support. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living at the home. The home specialises in caring for older people with dementia. It is purpose built and arranged over two floors. There is a lift to assist people to get to the first floor. Within the home, each person has their own room with en-suite facilities.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During our inspection we found temperatures of medicines in cold storage were not being monitored so staff did not have full assurance these were safe to use. However all other medicines were stored safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People and their relatives told us people were safe at Pelham House. Staff knew how to protect people if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or harm. The home, and the equipment within it, was regularly checked to ensure it was safe. The home was clear and free of clutter to enable people to move freely around the home. There were enough suitable staff to care for and support people.

There were plans in place to manage the majority of identified risks to people’s health, safety and welfare. However plans to manage specific risks to people from malnutrition were not properly documented on their individual records.

People’s needs were met by staff who received appropriate training and support. Staff felt well supported by the manager. Staff looked after people in a way which was kind, caring and respectful. They had a good understanding of people’s needs and how these should be met.

Staff encouraged and supported people to keep healthy and well through regular monitoring of their general health and wellbeing. Where there were any issues or concerns about a person’s health or wellbeing staff ensured they received prompt care and attention from appropriate healthcare professionals.

Care plans were developed which reflected people’s needs and their individual choices and beliefs for how they lived their lives. People’s relatives and other healthcare professionals were involved in supporting them to make decisions about their care and support needs. Where people were unable to make complex decisions about their care and support, staff ensured appropriate procedures were followed to ensure decisions were made in their best interests.

The home was warm and welcoming to visitors and relatives. People were encouraged and supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable raising any concerns they had with staff and knew how to make a complaint if needed. People said concerns raised in the past had been listened to and dealt with responsively. 

The systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service were not always used effectively. We found where action had been identified by senior managers to improve the quality of people’s records this was not taken in a timely manner. We also identified that checks of people’s records did not effectively identify when these had not been completed appropriately.

The provider had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager had sufficient training to understand when an application should be made and in how to submit one. This helped to ensure people were safeguarded as required by the legislation.