Archived: Florence House

Updated 11 March 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 29 January 2021 and was unannounced.

Updated 11 March 2021

The Florence House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Florence House accommodates 21 people in one adapted building over two floors. There were 15 people using this service at the time of this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on the 13 February 2018.

.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. Care records showed they were reviewed and any changes had been recorded.

The environment was clean and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection. We found supplies were available for staff to use when required.

People were helped to take their medicines by staff who were trained and had been assessed to be competent to administer medicines.

People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who used the service. People were looked after by staff who were trained and supported to do their job.

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

People had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met. Care records seen confirmed visits to and from General Practitioners (GP's) and other healthcare professionals had been recorded.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink.

Staff knew people they supported and provided a personalised service in a caring way. This was confirmed by talking with people who lived at the service and relatives.

Care plans were organised and had identified care and support people required. We found by conversations with staff they had a good understanding of protecting and respecting people's human rights.

People participated in a range of activities within the service or in the community and received the support they needed to help them to do this. The support included staff assisting people to meet their cultural and religious needs.

People were involved in the running of the service. Regular meetings were held for the people and their relatives so that they could discuss any issues or make recommendations for improvements to how the service was run.

There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and were acted upon. Information available with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by them.

There were clear management arrangements in place. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken as a result. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action was taken where improvements were identified.

Further information is in the detailed findings below