This focused unannounced inspection took place on 21 June 2018. We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 16 and 21 November 2017 where we rated the key questions, is the service effective, is the service caring and is the service responsive as good. We also inspected the two key questions, is the service safe? and is the service well led? And rated these as requires improvement and overall.
This inspection was carried out to check that improvements to meet the legal requirement planned by the provider after our November 2017 inspection had been made. Their action plan had stated improvements would be made by 2 February 2018. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Seymour House Northwood on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We also carried out this inspection because we had received concerns relating to the recruitment and training of staff and the overall management of the service. This report includes our findings in relation to these topics.
Seymour House- Northwood 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.
Seymour House- Northwood accommodates 36 older people in one adapted building. At the time of our visit there were 35 people using the service. Some people were living with the experience of dementia. The service did not provide nursing care.
On the 21 June 2018 we inspected the service against two of the five questions we ask about services: is the service safe? and is the service well led? This was because these two domains had been requires improvement at the November 2017 inspection and these were also linked with the concerns we received about the service. At this inspection we found that the service remained requires improvement.
No risks, concerns or significant improvement were identified in the remaining Key Questions through our ongoing monitoring or during our inspection activity so we did not inspect them. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for these Key Questions were included in calculating the overall rating in this inspection.
There was a registered manager 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Systems and procedures had not been put in place to ensure safe management of medicines to reflect current legislation and national guidance.
There were some systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service. However, these needed to expand to cover more aspects of the service and identify what was working well and where improvements needed to be made.
Risk assessments for individuals were in place to mitigate risks. There was no clear system for reviewing people’s risk assessments and this led to one assessment not being checked by the provider since August 2017. The registered manager confirmed they would re-check all risk assessments to make sure they were detailed and reviewed on a regular basis.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Overall people and staff felt supported by the registered manager, however, there had been the issues raised to us and some of the feedback from staff was less positive about how the service was managed.
There was a process in place for the recording of incidents but this information was not always reviewed by the registered manager to ensure appropriate action had been taken to address the incidents and to help prevent reoccurrence of similar incidents in the future.
Recruitment procedures were in place, although two references were not always sought in a timely way to ensure staff were suitable to work at the service, before they were offered employment.
Staff used appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) equipment including aprons and gloves when providing support.
There were sufficient numbers of staff working to support people appropriately.
There were health and safety checks carried out to ensure people lived in a safe environment.