24 January 2017
During a routine inspection
Princess Marina House is situated on the south coast, in Rustington, West Sussex. It is an exceptionally large, purpose built, detached property spread over two floors. It has communal lounges, dining rooms and gardens. It is owned by The Royal Air Force (RAF) Benevolent Fund and is a home that offers respite and short breaks for serving and former RAF personnel and their families, however, will also accommodate personnel from other services. Princess Marina House can accommodate 50 people and is registered to provide care for up to 30 people, for adults over 18, some of whom are living with physical disabilities or dementia and who may require support with their personal care needs. On the day of the inspection there was one permanent resident who lived at the home and 16 people who were staying at the home for a short break. People could fund their own care and stay or have their stay subsidised by the RAF Benevolent Fund.
The RAF Benevolent Fund had conducted research and consulted with people across the country to identify what people required and expected of the fund. As a result, a respite at home service was implemented in 2016 for people who lived in their own homes, to reduce the risk of social isolation. This provided support for people, some of whom required support with their personal care needs, and offered a respite service to them and their permanent carers. On the day of the inspection there were six people receiving this service.
During the inspection we inspected both the home as well as the respite at home service.
The home and respite at home service had the same registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People, who stayed at the home and those that used the respite at home service, received a service that was extremely responsive to their needs. People who used both services had access to a wide and varied range of activities and stimulation to meet their social and emotional needs. People were complimentary about the entertainment provided within the home, they told us, “There is always some form of entertainment. Every day you can get to the village on their bus” and “There are trips out and even when there are only two of us, they still take us out. There is plenty of entertainment”. People who used the respite at home service were supported to access the local community and partake in activities that they enjoyed. A relative of a person who used the service told us, “They do respond to all their needs. They pick my relative up and return them”.
The home and the respite at home service was extremely well-managed by both the provider and the registered manager. The registered manager strived to continually improve the service provided and welcomed feedback and used this to drive improvements and change. There were quality assurance processes in place to enable the registered manager to have oversight of the home and of the respite at home service, to ensure that people were receiving the quality of service they had a right to expect. People, relatives’ and staff were extremely complimentary about the leadership and management of the home and of the respite at home service. One person staying at the home told us, “The manager is on the ball. It’s beautifully run”.
People told us that they received a service that they valued and that had a positive impact on their lives. Comments from people staying at the home, included, “The service here is first class, it’s like coming on holiday” and “This place is the jewel in the crown. I would recommend it”. Positive comments continued from people and relatives who used the respite at home service. A relative told us, “Princess Marina does a marvellous job”.
Staff worked in accordance with peoples’ wishes and people were treated with respect and dignity. It was apparent that staff knew peoples’ needs and preferences well. Positive relationships had developed between people and staff. One person staying at the home, told us, “The staff are very friendly, they think a lot about me. They are polite with me, like asking if they could make my bed. I like to be happy and have a laugh and a joke with them all”. People and relatives who used the respite at home service were equally as positive. A relative told us, “The carers are so caring and are so interested in our past life” and “They are so good at talking to my relative. They get them to open up, where I can’t”.
People who stayed at the home and those that used the respite at home service were protected from harm and abuse. There were sufficient quantities of appropriately skilled and experienced staff who had undertaken the necessary training to assure their competence and enable them to recognise concerns and respond appropriately. Peoples’ freedom was not unnecessarily restricted and they were able to take risks in accordance with risk assessments that had been devised and implemented.
People who stayed at the home and those that used the respite at home service, received their medicines on time and according to their preferences, from staff with the necessary training and who had their competence assessed. There were safe systems in place for the storage, administration and disposal of medicines. A relative of a person who used the respite at home service, told us, “They give them their medication at lunchtime and they have never missed any”. The building and equipment were adapted to meet peoples’ needs. People who required assistance with their mobility had access to appropriate equipment to aid their independence.
People who stayed at the home and those that used the respite at home service were asked their consent before being supported and staff had a good awareness of legislative requirements with regard to making decisions on behalf of people who lacked capacity. People and their relatives’, if appropriate, were fully involved in the planning, review and delivery of care and were able to make their wishes and preferences known. Care plans documented peoples’ needs and wishes in relation to their social, emotional and health needs and these were reviewed and updated regularly to ensure that they were current.
People who stayed at the home and those that used the respite at home service had their health needs assessed and met. People had access to medicines and healthcare professionals when required. Peoples’ privacy and dignity was respected and maintained. People within the home had a positive dining experience and told us that they were happy with the quantity, quality and choice of food. One person told us, “The meals are absolutely fabulous”. People who used the respite at home service, who required support with their eating and drinking, were supported appropriately. One person told us, “When they are here, they puree my food”.
The provider, management team and staff strived to ensure that people who stayed at the home and those who used the respite at home service, had access to high quality care. This was evident and embedded in their practice.