Sefton New Directions Limited - Chase Heys Resource Centre

Updated 10 February 2022

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.

The service had been identified for use by the Local Authority as a designated care setting for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 status. This targeted inspection was to ensure that the service was compliant with infection prevention and control measures.

This inspection took place on 20 January 2021 and was announced. We gave the service 1 days' notice of the inspection.

Updated 10 February 2022

Sefton New Directions Limited – Chase Heys Resource Centre is a purpose built establishment providing accommodation and personal care for 30 older people. The service has 19 respite places and 11 intermediate care places (these are places supported by rehabilitation services from the local NHS provider.) The service accommodates people across three separate units. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people using the service.

Sefton New Directions Limited - Chase Heys Resource Centre is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 8 June 2018. The last inspection was on 4 and 5 October 2017 when the service was rated as ‘Required improvement’.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

At our last inspection, we identified breaches of Regulations 12 (safe care and treatment), Regulation 16 (receiving and acting on complaints), Regulation 17 (good governance), and Regulation 19 (fit and proper persons) of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. During this inspection we checked to see if sufficient improvements in these areas had been made and we found that they had.

At our last inspection, the way staff were recruited was not always robust. This was because the required pre-employment checks necessary to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults had not always been made. At this inspection, we saw that this had been addressed. We looked at the recruitment records for three members of staff. We saw that each staff member's suitability to work at the home had been checked prior to employment.

At our last inspection we found that some medication administration records (MARs) could be improved upon with regards to being double signed. Most MARs had been double signed by two members of staff as best practice to help ensure a correct record of medicines but three had not. Medication storage facilities for people who self administered their own medication also required improvement. During this inspection we found that people's MARs were now completed appropriately and that people who self administered their own medication had safe storage facilities to ensure their medicines were kept secure at all times.

At the last inspection we found that the care plans belonging to people in receipt of intermediate care were not fully developed with regard to people's care choices. In addition, some people told us that they did not always receive a bath or shower when they had asked for one.

We looked at the care records belonging to four people. We saw that they contained a detailed assessment on people's admission to the home. This helped to identify people’s requirements and preferences in relation to their care, whether people preferred a bath, shower or full body wash. People’s choice and preferences were also now reflected in other areas of their care plan for staff to be aware of. For example, the types of food people enjoyed and how they preferred their tea or coffee to be prepared were specified.

At the last inspection, we found that quality assurance processes to seek the views of people using the service and their families were not always collated or used to improve the service. At this inspection people's suggestions and opinions on the service had been sought and acted upon where practicable. For example, more choice had been provided at mealtimes in response to people's feedback.

During our last inspection people's complaints had not always been handled appropriately. During this inspection we saw that improvements had been made. The manager and provider had responded to any complaints received about the service appropriately.

During our inspection we saw that staff supported people in a person centred way and treated them with respect. People we spoke with including relatives said that staff had the skills and knowledge to ensure people received adequate care. When we checked some staff training records however we found that some staff training needed updating. We saw that the manager had made arrangements to address this.

People we spoke with using the service told us they felt happy and safe. People were positive about the care they received and the staff team.

We found that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People told us that friends and relatives could visit them at anytime.

Staff we spoke with were able to describe how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure people were protected from harm. Staff were aware of the importance to report any concerns they had.

Staff sought consent from people before providing support. Staff we spoke with understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in order to ensure people consented to the care they received.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for checking the environment was safe. For example, health and safety audits were completed on a regular basis and any accidents and incidents were reported and recorded appropriately.

People felt involved in their care and there was evidence in their care plans to show that they had been consulted about decisions. People were supported by a range of other health care professionals, for example, GPs, district nurses, physiotherapist and occupational therapists.

The service employed a designated member of day care staff who facilitated varied social activities and people told us they were able to take part and have a say in what activities that they would like to do.

We asked people about how they thought the home was managed and their feedback was positive.