Archived: Normanhurst EMI Home

Updated 29 November 2018

We carried out this 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 took place on the 4 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one 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.

Before the inspection we looked the information we held about the home and the service provider. This included information from other agencies and statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about events that occurred at the service. We also reviewed the information sent in by the provider and registered manager in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service; such as what they do well and any improvements they plan to make.

Some people who lived in the home were unable to verbally share with us their experiences of life at the home because of their dementia needs. Therefore, we spent a large amount of time during our inspection observing the interaction between staff and people and watched how people were being cared for by staff in communal areas. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with nine people, three visitors and seven staff; including the registered manager, chef, care staff, activity staff and activity manager.

We reviewed records, including four care plans, the provider’s internal checks and audits, care plans, medicine records and accidents and incidents.

We asked the registered manager to send us minutes of residents and staff meetings and these were forwarded promptly. Other information such as the training plan and policies and procedures were the same as requested previously when we inspected Normanhurst Care Home, as we did not need these.

Updated 29 November 2018

This inspection took place on the 5 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Normanhurst EMI Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 18 older people who are living with dementia or require support with their mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were eleven people living there.

At the last inspection in August 2017 the overall rating for Normanhurst EMI Home was Requires Improvement as more work was needed to ensure their quality assurance system identified areas where improvements were required. Such as the provision of relevant training in moving and handling and record keeping. At this inspection we found these areas had been addressed and the overall rating had improved to Good.

The registered manager of Normanhurst EMI Home is also the registered manager for Normanhurst Care Home and was present during the 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. The providers for the service are Mr David Lewis and Mr Robert Hebbes. They also own Normanhurst Nursing Home and Normanhurst Care Home.

An effective quality assurance system enabled management to audit the care plans and other records, such as medicines, accidents and incidents, cleaning and infection control, to identify trends and take action when needed. People and relatives told us the staff were very good; they offered the support and care people needed and involved them in discussions about driving forward improvements at the home.

Risk had been assessed and staff supported people to remain independent, active and safe, as they moved around the home using walking aids and with staff assistance. Staff had completed relevant training, including medicines, infection control and safeguarding. They demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs, how to protect people from harm and what action they would take if they had any concerns. Supervision and staff meetings kept staff up to date with current best practice and they were aware of their roles and responsibilities. Robust recruitment procedures ensured only suitable staff were employed and there were enough staff working in the home to provide the care people needed.

Care plans were written and agreed with people and their relatives, if appropriate. They included physical and mental health needs with risk assessments and clear guidance for staff to follow to ensure they had the care they needed. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and wishes. They explained clearly how people made decisions about the care provided and we observed staff listened to people and acted on their requests.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consistently asked if people needed support or assistance. The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS applications had been requested when required to ensure people were safe.

From August 2016 all organisations that provide NHS care or adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The standard aims to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss are provided with information that they can easily read or understand so that they can communicate effectively. Staff were aware that people had different communication needs and were able to explain how they supported people to communicate.

People said the food was good; they enjoyed a cooked breakfast most days and asked for another meal when they did not like the meal they had chosen. Staff offered alternatives and people were enjoyed these. Staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink and contacted their GP if they had any concerns. Visitors to the home were made to feel very welcome and people were supported to keep in touch with relatives and friends.