Archived: Rathside Rest Home

Rathside Rest Home is registered to provide care and support for up to 32 people, some of whom are living with dementia. The service is located in Scawby, near Brigg. Accommodation is provided on two floors with communal areas provided on each one. The ground floor is used to provide accommodation for people living with dementia; the first floor accommodates people who require help and support with personal care. There is a small car park at the front of the service for visitors to use.

The service has a registered manager. 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and knew they must report concerns or potential abuse to the management team, local authority or to the CQC. This helped to protect people.

Staffing levels provided on the day of our inspection were adequate to meet people’s needs. Staff understood the risks to people’s wellbeing and knew what action they had to take to help minimise risks. Training in a variety of subjects was provided to staff and it was updated periodically to help develop and maintain the staff’s skills. Staff received supervision and appraisal occurred which helped to support the staff.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and monitored. People’s special dietary needs were known and staff encouraged and assisted people to eat and drink, where necessary. A pictorial menu was provided to help people living with dementia to choose what they would like to eat. Advice was sought from relevant health care professionals to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met.

People were supported by staff to make decisions for themselves. Staff reworded questions or information to help people living with dementia understand what was being said. We saw people chose how to spend their time and gave consent to their care and treatment.

People who used the service were supported to make their own decisions about aspects of their daily lives. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when there were concerns people lacked capacity and important decisions needed to be made.

A programme of activities was provided to help stimulate people. There were items for people to use to help them reminisce. People were encouraged to maintain their hobbies and interests.

We found issues with four bedroom doors being held open by inappropriate means. There was also no carbon monoxide detector in the boiler area of the laundry and an expel air that needed replacing in the sluice. These issues were swiftly addressed by the management team. There was pictorial signage to help people living with dementia to find their way around. The environment was decorated in different colours, and the registered manager told us of future redecoration plans where the environment was to be further enhanced to help people living with dementia. General maintenance occurred and service contracts were in place to maintain equipment so it remained safe to use.

A complaints procedure was in place. This was explained to people living with dementia or to their relations so they were informed. People’s views were asked for and feedback received was acted upon.

The registered provider undertook a variety of audits to help them monitor the quality of the service. Issues found were addressed quickly and thoroughly. The registered provider and registered manager were proactive in supporting people, relatives, visitors and staff. There was a homely and welcoming atmosphere at the service.

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service and the staff supporting them, and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

' Is the service caring?

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of the people who used the service and could describe how to maintain people's dignity and how to ensure people's choices were respected.

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service, completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where suggestions or concerns had been raised, the provider had listened and made changes to the service.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

' Is the service responsive?

Staff knew the people they cared for and understood their preferences, likes and dislikes and personal histories.

We saw that people's care needs were kept under review and care plans, risk assessments and support plans were updated when required.

' Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to make sure that the registered manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped to ensure that the service continually improved.

The people who used the service told us they were happy in the home. We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by staff.

The home was clean and free from odours.

' Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

There was an advocacy service available if people needed to use it. This meant that when required people could access additional support.

' Is the service well led?

The service had quality assurance systems in place and records we looked at showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly.

The provider consulted with people about how the service was run and took account of their views.

Staff told us they were supported by their manager and enjoyed their jobs.

What people who used the service and those that matter to them said about the care and support they received.

People who used the service made comments including, "Yes I'm happy here it's nice enough' and 'The staff are kind and I like the managers' as well.'

A visiting relative told us, "They do a good job in here Mum has been quite ill but the staff have been wonderful and Mum is a lot happier and healthier now."

Information was available for staff to follow about how to meet people’s needs. Staff were able to describe how they cared for people and how to they kept them safe from harm.

People were protected from the risk of infection because the provider had systems in place which ensured the environment was clean and well maintained. People told us they were satisfied with the level of cleanliness. One person said, “My room is cleaned every day.” We also saw staff using protective clothing.

People were protected by the providers recruitment procedures which ensured they were not exposed to any staff who should not be working with vulnerable people.

Records about people’s care and welfare were well maintained and held securely.

We found that people were well cared for by staff that understood their needs. People received appropriate nutrition. People were cared for by adequate numbers of staff and people had opportunities to make their views of the service known to the provider.

People said, “We get the best of attention here,” “The food is very good and we have a choice” and “If I were not satisfied with anything I would tell the manager.”

We found that there were some shortfalls in the service with infection control standards which meant there was a minor risk to peoples’ health. We found that a small part of the premises were in a condition that made infection control difficult to uphold.

We found that there were some shortfalls in recording information in care plans, which meant staff did not show how peoples’ needs had been properly planned for and met.