Archived: Andrew Cohen 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 the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 2 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 11 March 2021

About the service

Andrew Cohen House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 56 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. Andrew Cohen House can accommodate up to 59 people in one adapted building.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe and we saw potential safeguarding concerns were appropriately escalated to relevant partner agencies to help protect people. Systems were in place to review incidents and help prevent future risks to people. Some staff needed more support to understand all the types of abuse people could experience.

People’s risks were known to staff and measures followed to promote people’s safety. Staffing levels were safe. People received safe support with their medicines.

We observed good support which met people’s needs and people and relatives spoke positively about the support provided. We have made a recommendation around the quality and detail of records related to some people’s needs.

Staff all told us they had enough training and support for their roles. Mandatory training was provided in relation to people’s needs although this was not always refreshed as often as planned.

People were supported to access healthcare support and to eat and drink enough to stay well.

The décor of the service was designed according to people’s preferences and to enhance the homely atmosphere.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice although we raised some potential areas of improvement with the registered manager.

People were supported to get involved in discussions and decisions about their care and to have their needs and preferences well met. We saw exceptionally warm and caring support from staff who had developed strong relationships and trust with people living at the home. Staff demonstrated empathy and respect towards people and understood their role in always upholding and promoting people’s privacy, dignity and independence. People were informed on the Jewish traditions and beliefs that were intrinsic to the culture of the service. People’s alternative religious beliefs and individuals’ needs were also recognised and met.

People received care that reflected their needs and preferences, including in relation to communication needs and end of life care planning. Complaints were appropriately responded to. Records did not always reflect the positive care we observed and heard about from people and relatives.

People were supported to have good access to activities that they enjoyed and which were tailored to people’s abilities and interests.

We found some inconsistencies and improvements required where some systems and processes were not yet robust and did not always reflect the good quality care we found. However, areas of improvement we identified were immediately addressed by the registered manager and systems were in place to build on and sustain consistently good quality care.

The home promoted a positive, welcoming and caring culture and this approach was consistent across all staff. Care was taken to encourage staff and to engage with the public and develop community links all to enhance the quality of people’s lives and positive experiences. Reference was made to current good practice and initiatives to support ongoing improvements to the care provided.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 08 March 2018). Since this rating was awarded the provider has altered its legal entity. We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.