Archived: Richard Peck House

Updated 30 June 2017

We carried out this comprehensive inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 visit took place on 06 June 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides short welfare breaks for people who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure someone would be in.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert- by-experience had a background dealing with older people.

We spoke with a range of people about the service. They included four people staying at Richard Peck House, the registered manager and four staff members. Prior to our inspection visit we contacted the commissioning department at Lancashire council and Healthwatch Lancashire. Healthwatch Lancashire is an independent consumer champion for health and social care. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced accessing the service.

We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) we received prior to our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This provided us with information and numerical data about the operation of the service. We used this information as part of the evidence for the inspection. This guided us to what areas we would focus on as part of our inspection.

During our inspection we used a method called Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This involved observing staff interactions with the people in their care. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at care records of three people, staff training and supervision records of three staff and arrangements for meal provision. We also looked at records relating to the management of the Richard Peck House and the medication records of one person. We reviewed the services recruitment procedures and checked staffing levels. We also checked the building to ensure it was clean, hygienic and a safe place for people to stay.

Updated 30 June 2017

Richard Peck House is owned by The Royal Air Force Association (RAFA). It provides short welfare breaks to service personnel and their relatives in a comfortable, hotel style environment. A number of places are available for people requiring help with personal care needs. There is easy access to a range of communal facilities. The sea front is within easy walking distance and public transport links are near by.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People staying at Richard Peck House told us they felt safe and were happy with their care. We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. We saw they were kind and patient and supported people in their care safely.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

We looked around the building and found it had been maintained, was clean and hygienic and a safe place for people to stay. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.

Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs. Staffing levels were observed to be sufficient to meet the needs of people staying at Richard Peck House.

The service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

Medication procedures observed were safe and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storing in place.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

People had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. We saw the service had responded promptly when one person had experienced health problems. This included arranging a visit from a local GP. The person told us they were happy with how the service had responded on their behalf.

People told us staff were caring towards them. The staff we spoke with understood the importance of high standards of care to give people meaningful lives.

The registered manager had information with regards to support from an external advocate should

this be required by people during their stay at Richard Peck House.

Staff knew people they supported and provided a personalised service in a caring and professional manner. Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required during their stay at Richard Peck House. We found they were informative about care people had received.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people during their stay at Richard Peck House. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits and guest surveys to seek their views about the service provided.