Archived: Calderbank House

People’s experience of using this service:

People were happy living at Calderbank House. They told us staff were kind, caring and treated them with respect. People told us staff were ‘always around’ and responded promptly if they needed support. People’s health care needs were well managed.

Activities were on offer and people were supported to go out in the community. People’s dietary needs were met and they said they enjoyed the food. Medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. There were no staff on night duty as the people currently living in the home did not require care at night. The registered manager, who was also the provider and lived on the premises, was available if people needed assistance overnight. This situation was kept under review and night staff were brought in if people’s needs changed and they required support.

Recruitment processes ensured staff were suitable to work in the care service. Staff were well trained and supported by a registered manager who worked alongside them on a daily basis providing direction and guidance.

The home was clean and well maintained. People liked their rooms which were personalised with belongings and furniture they had brought in.

Care plans were personalised and showed the care and support people wanted and needed. Risk assessments were in place and showed the action taken to minimise risk. Safe systems were in place to manage any allegations of abuse.

A complaints procedure was displayed. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and were confident these would be dealt with appropriately.

People, relatives and staff praised the management of the home and spoke highly of the registered manager who they said was approachable and always available. Audits and checks were carried out and used to drive continuous improvements to the service people received.

More information in Detailed Findings below:

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 13 June 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. We found the service continues to meet the characteristics of Good in all areas.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

We inspected Calderbank House on the 8 April 2016 and the visit was unannounced. Our last inspection took place in November 2013 and at that time the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The home had a safeguarding policy in place which made staff aware of their roles and responsibilities. We found staff knew and understood how to protect people from abuse and harm and kept them as safe as possible. People told us they felt safe because the staff were caring and because the registered provider/manager listened to them and acted quickly if they raised concerns.

There were enough staff on day duty to meet people’s needs and staff had undertaken training relevant to their roles. However, the rota showed night staff were not employed as the registered provider/manager lived on the premises and provided “on call” assistance to people during the night if required. We were assured this situation would be kept under review and night staff employed if they are required to meet people’s changing needs.

Staff told us communication within the home was good and they were kept up to date with any changes in policies and procedures or anything that might affect people’s care and treatment.

The home was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

The activities plan for the home showed that daily activities took place and people were encouraged to participate in activities both within the home and the local community.

People told us they enjoyed the food and we saw a wide range of food and drinks were available. We saw people’s weight was monitored to ensure they had sufficient to eat and drink.

We saw the complaints policy had been made available to everyone who used the service. The policy detailed the arrangements for raising complaints, responding to complaints and the expected timescales within which a response would be received.

The care plans in place were person centred and contained individual risk assessments which identified specific risks to people health and general well-being, such as falls, mobility, nutrition and skin integrity.

We saw arrangements were in place that made sure people's health needs were met. For example, people had access to the full range of NHS services. We found medication policies and procedures were in place and staff responsible for administering medicines received appropriate training.

There was a quality assurance monitoring system in place that was designed to continually monitor and identify shortfalls in service provision. Audit results were analysed for themes and trends and there was evidence that learning from incidents took place and appropriate changes were made to procedures or work practices if required.

During our visit we spoke with the manager and three staff. We also spoke with three people who lived at the home and one visitor.

We observed interaction between staff and the people who used the service. We heard staff asking people what they would like to do and explaining what was happening.

As part of our inspection we looked at the care plans of two people who used the service. We saw they provided sufficient information to enable care staff to meet the needs of the individual.

We looked around the home and found it was clean, tidy and well maintained.

We saw the home provided staff with information about the medications people who lived at the home were prescribed.

Staff were supported in relation their responsibilities to deliver care and treatment to people who live at the home, safely.

One relative we spoke with said 'Its faultless, excellent.'