The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Richard Peck House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 St Thomas Road, Lytham St.Annes, Lancashire, FY8 1JL (01253) 725519

Provided and run by:
The RAF Association (RAFA)

All Inspections

6 June 2017

During a routine inspection

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.

27 October 2014

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 27 October 2014. Richard Peck House is owned by The Royal Air Force Association (RAFA). The service provides short welfare breaks for service personnel and their relatives in a comfortable, hotel style environment. The service provides nine beds for people who require help with their personal care needs. The sea front is within easy walking distance and public transport links are nearby.

People were supported to understand what keeping safe meant and were encouraged to raise any concerns they may have about this. Staff at the service understood that people's safety had to be balanced with people’s right to make choices and to take risks. Staff recognised the important role that safeguarding people from abuse had in enabling people to live a positive life.

People who used the service felt that the risks associated with their care were managed appropriately and that they were involved in making decisions about any risks they wanted to take. The systems and procedures operated at the home were designed to enable people to live their lives in the way they chose, so they could be as independent as possible. The care and support offered to people at the home was personalised and put the person at the centre in identifying their needs and choices.

People received their medicines as prescribed, because they were stored, administered and disposed of safely, in line with current and relevant regulations and guidance. Staff were provided with effective support, induction, supervision, appraisal and training. People told us they had enough to eat and drink throughout the day, and at night if required. The management team and staff had a clear vision and set of values based on involvement, compassion, dignity, independence, respect, equality and safety.

The service had a system to manage and report accidents and incidents and where required, action plans were developed and monitored to ensure people's safety was promoted and protected. Quality was seen to be integral to the service’s approach and staff were aware of potential risks to the quality of the service. Robust quality assurance and, where appropriate, governance systems were in place and these were used to drive continuous improvement. The service had appropriate data management systems in place. 

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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. We last inspected this service on 10 December 2013 and the home was found to be fully compliant.

10 December 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we were able to speak with five people staying at Richard Peck House, who all provided us with positive comments about the service they received. They told us the staff team were very kind and caring and that the environment was always clean and hygienic. We were also able to speak with two relatives.

Comments from those living at the home and some relatives included:

"I have stayed in many top class hotels around the world and none of them come anywhere close to this place and I truly mean that."

"You cannot fault it here. It is wonderful. They (the staff) are so welcoming and caring."

"I have been here three times this year. I love coming here. It is a nice holiday."

During our inspection we assessed standards relating to care and welfare and how people consented to any care and support provided. Standards relating to infection control, staff training and monitoring the quality of service provision were also inspected. We did not identify any concerns in any of the outcome areas we assessed.

27 February 2013

During a routine inspection

During the course of our visit we spoke individually with four people who were enjoying a break at Richard Peck House. Three of the four people had visited previously and all spoke positively of the personal qualities of the staff team. One person said, 'They are marvellous. They look after everybody well, they ask you how you are and how you are feeling'. They are all very helpful, kind and caring'. Another person said, 'I love this place, the people are all lovely, they help you but not obtrusively, they are very obliging'. A third person simply said, 'There is no place like it, it's better than the Ritz'.

Staff received good training and felt well supported. One person told us, 'I enjoy working here. We care for the people that come and a very good quality of care is provided'.

We saw that staff had good detailed written information about the things people could do for themselves and what assistance was required, for example with personal care. This had been provided before the person visited the home and then checked again on arrival.

A member of staff told us that a thorough recruitment process had taken place prior to her being offered employment at Richard Peck House.

A good system was in place to check if the service provided was meeting the needs and expectations of the people that visited. Nobody we spoke with had any concerns what so ever, but people expressed a lot of complements.

14 February 2012

During a routine inspection

We were consistently told by guests that Richard Peck House was, 'Excellent.' One person said, 'You could not wish for a nicer place, you cannot fault anything here.' Another person said, 'The staff are excellent, if you want anything they will get it for you or take you to get it. Everything is very flexible, they work with you.'

We saw that guests were very relaxed and comfortable. Throughout the visit staff were observed to be respectful, kind and considerate when assisting people. It was clear that there was a good relationship between the guests and the staff team that supported them.

People using the service and members of the staff team all spoke very highly

of the care and support provided. Comments included: 'The quality of care is very good here.' A member of staff reported that one of the most valuable aspects was, 'The association and interaction with guests. Some of our guests live alone and don't have much company but they can chat to people here. They have a shared interest. They get good food and good care.'

A guest spoken with stated, 'The staff are excellent, all very competent. They know what they are doing and do it in a caring way.'

We did not directly ask guests about safeguarding. However the people we spoke with were all very complimentary about all aspects of the service provided with one person saying, 'I would tell them if something is wrong but I keep coming back, so that says everything.'

A member of staff told us that a thorough recruitment process had taken place prior to her being offered employment at Richard Peck House. However we found some discrepancies in the recruitment processes adopted that could pose a risk.

The guests we spoke with did give us general feedback about the manager and all members of staff describing them as very approachable and very good. One person said, 'Everybody is very helpful and kind. They always do their best and it is very good.'