St Christopher's Residential Home has 18 bedrooms and is registered to accommodate a maximum of 19 people. It specialises in providing support to older people who require minimal assistance with their personal care. The service does not have a hoist and therefore only provides accommodation to people who can transfer, for example from bed to a chair either independently or with minimal support from staff. Bedrooms are located over four floors which are accessible via stairs or a stair lift. There is level access to a patio at the rear of the property where there are raised flower beds. At the time of our inspection 14 people were living at the service, two of whom had agreed to share a room. A registered manager was 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.
At the last inspection we identified a breach of Regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 which is equivalent to Regulation 17 of the HSCA regulations 2014. At that time the provider had no quality assurance systems governing infection control, records or care plans to enable them to identify shortfalls in service provision. At this inspection we found this breach had been met, however systems had not yet been fully embedded, and was therefore an area of practice that needs improvement to ensure that risk was managed and improvements sustained.
Since the last inspection the provider had made improvements in relation to the storage of medicines and the recording of the quantity of medicines received from the pharmacy. They had also ensured that the risks associated with people who went out independently, and actions staff should take to reduce these risks, had been documented.
People’s independence was promoted; they were supported to remain mobile and encouraged to go for daily walks.
People had access to activities and opportunities for social engagement and stimulation. Exercise and arts and crafts sessions were held on a regular basis, activities such as quizzes were arranged in the afternoons and singers or musicians visited once a month to provide entertainment. People were supported to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them. Relatives were made to feel welcome.
Everyone told us they were happy with the care they were receiving and one person told us, “I get what I need, it’s really good here.” Another person commented “The girls are marvellous, very pleasant. You only have to ask and it’s done.” Relatives were kept informed of their loved one’s wellbeing and any changes in their needs.
One person told us “The staff are lovely, we are looked after very well.” Another commented “I feel very happy here. It’s a very homely place.” A relative told us “I think the staff are good in their attitude to residents.” A visitor told us “The staff are lovely. The care here seems very good; I’d recommend it”
People’s privacy and dignity was respected and upheld. One person told us “They are good when dealing with me privately.” Another person commented “They are respectful, they knock when coming in.”
Meal times were relaxed and sociable. People spoke highly of the quality of the food on offer which was homemade from fresh ingredients.
Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives and staff. ‘Residents’ meetings were held on a regular basis which provided a forum for people to raise concerns and discuss ideas.
People’s needs had been assessed and planned for. Plans took into account people’s preferences, likes and dislikes and were reviewed on a regular basis. Staff worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and associated legislation ensuring consent to care and treatment was obtained. People were supported to make their own decisions and where people lacked the capacity to do so relevant legislation was followed.
People’s health and wellbeing was continually monitored and the registered manager regularly liaised with healthcare professionals for advice and guidance. People received medicines on time and records of people’s health and emotional wellbeing had been maintained. One person told us “I get my medication and they supervise me taking them.” Staff were responsive when people needed assistance. Staff checked to make sure that equipment people needed to move was within reach and offered people encouragement to use them.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff, most of whom held a nationally recognised qualification in care. The recruitment and selection procedures in place ensured that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. Staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse had taken place and felt confident in raising concerns. They received the training and support they needed to undertake their role.
Risks to people were identified and managed appropriately and people had personal emergency evacuation plans in place in the event of an emergency. Accident and incidents had been recorded and monitored to identify any themes or trends.
People, their visitors and staff had confidence in the leadership of the service. The management of the service were open and transparent and a culture of continuous learning and improvement was promoted. The provider had ensured there were processes in place to respond to complaints appropriately.