Background to this inspection
Updated
24 January 2018
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, 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 4 December 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team was made up of two inspectors.
Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included notifications the home had sent us and information received from other parties. We had not requested a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We were able to gather this information during our inspection.
We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also observed care practices, spoke with nine people living in the home, four visiting relatives, five members of staff, and the registered manager and chef. We also looked at five people's care records, and reviewed records relating to the running of the service. This included four staff records, quality monitoring audits and accident and incident forms.
Updated
24 January 2018
Drayton House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection. Drayton House provides personal care and accommodation for up to 19 older people, including people with dementia-related conditions. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people using the service. People had a variety of care and support needs related to their physical and mental health.
The inspection took place on 4 December 2017 and was unannounced. This meant staff did not know we were visiting.
At our last inspection in May 2016 we identified a breach of regulation. This breach was in respect of good governance in regards care records were not accurate putting people at risk of receiving inappropriate care. At this inspection we checked to see if the provider had made the improvements necessary to meet the requirements of the regulation. We found that improvements had been made.
We last inspected Drayton House on 20 May 2016 and rated the service as Requires Improvement. 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 in safe and well led to a rating of good. We found that during this inspection the action plan had been followed and improvements had been made
The service had a registered manager who was on duty during the course of our visit. 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.
Staff were consistent in their knowledge of people's care needs and spoke with confidence about the individualised support people received to meet these needs. They told us they felt supported in their roles and had taken training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills. There was a plan in place to ensure staff received refresher training as deemed necessary by the provider.
Staff told us they received regular supervisions which were carried out by the management team. Staff told us that they found these useful. We reviewed records which confirmed this.
People felt safe. They were protected from harm because staff understood the risks people faced and how to reduce these risks. Measures to reduce risk reflected the person's preferences.
People told us they received the care and support they needed. They also told us they saw health care professionals when necessary and were supported to maintain their health by staff. People's needs related to on going healthcare and health emergencies were met and recorded.
People received their medicines as they were prescribed. Medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff who had been trained and assessed as competent to give medicines.
People could be confident that at the end of their lives they would be cared for with kindness and compassion and their comfort would be maintained. The staff worked with other organisations to make sure high standards of care were provided and people received the support and treatment they wished for at the end of their lives. One relative wrote, “Thank you for looking after my mum so kindly and being so caring.”
People described the food as good and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough to eat and drink. Where people changed their mind about what they wanted to eat they were offered alternatives.
People had support, care and time, when they needed it, from staff who had been safely recruited.
People were engaged with activities that reflected their preferences, including individual and group activities both in the home and the local area.
Staff understood how people consented to the care they provided and encouraged people to make decisions about their lives. Care plans reflected that care was being delivered within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for when necessary.
People were positive about the care they received from the home and told us the staff were kind. Staff were cheerful and treated people and visitors with respect and kindness throughout our inspection.
People and staff felt that the service was well led. The registered manager and senior team encouraged an open working environment.