Archived: Freeman House

Updated 1 July 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 was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2014 and to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This visit took place on 19 May 2015 and was carried out by an inspection team which was formed of two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. The visit was unannounced. Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications relating to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us.

During the inspection we spoke with 10 people who lived at the service, five relatives and visitors, eight members of staff, the registered manager and the quality manager. We received feedback from health and social care professionals. We viewed three people’s support plans. We viewed three staff files. 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 due to complex health needs.

Updated 1 July 2015

This inspection was carried out on 19 May 2015 and was unannounced.

Freeman House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 48 older people. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

When we last inspected the service on 4 July 2013 we found them to be meeting the required standards. At this inspection we found that they had continued to meet the standards. However, there were areas which required improvement.

The provision of activities in the home required a review to ensure they were meeting everyone’s individual needs. Communication in the home, in particular between staff, people and their relatives required improvement.

The home is merging with another Quantum Care home in September at a new building. Plans were in place to ease transition and ensure people living at the home, their relatives and staff were kept informed of the progress and involved in the process.

Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection applications had been made to the local authority in relation to people who lived at the service and were pending an outcome. Staff were fully aware of their role in relation to MCA and DoLS and how people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty.

People had their individual needs met. Staff knew people well and provided support in a timely manner. There was sufficient food and drink available and people were assisted to eat and drink where needed.

People had regular access to visiting health and social care professionals. Staff responded to people’s changing health needs and sought the appropriate guidance or care by healthcare professionals. Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them in accordance with their needs.

Staff were clear on how to identify and report any concerns relating to a person’s safety and welfare. The manager responded to all concerns or complaints appropriately when they were made aware of them.

Staff were recruited through a robust procedure and provided with regular training to ensure their knowledge was up to date. Staff were clear on what their role. People and staff were positive about the manager and their leadership.