Inspection on 24/03/10 for Barons Park Nursing Home
Also see our care home review for Barons Park Nursing Home for more information
This is the latest available inspection report for this service, carried out on 24th March 2010.
CQC found this care home to be providing an Good service.
The inspector found no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 1 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.
Other inspections for this house
Barons Park Nursing Home 17/02/09
Barons Park Nursing Home 09/01/07
Barons Park Nursing Home 09/01/06
Barons Park Nursing Home 11/10/05
Barons Park Nursing Home 10/01/05
Barons Park Nursing Home 14/07/04
Barons Park Nursing Home 24/01/04
Similar services:
What follows are excerpts from this inspection report. For more information read the full report on the next tab.
What the care home does well
All areas of the home inspected were clean, fresh, tidy, and warm. Staffing levels were good and the staff we met were helpful and professional. They were knowledgeable about the residents they cared for, understood their needs, and knew where to find relevant information in care plans. Residents were well turned out and their personal care needs had been met. We talked to two residents and asked them what they thought of Barons Park. Their comments included, `It`s very nice here and the food is wonderful`, `Everything is excellent`, and `The food is absolutely marvellous. I never send anything back to the kitchen.` Breakfast was being served during the inspection. Residents were offered a range of menu items and staff helped them choose what they would like. Some residents needed assistance to eat and staff provided this discreetly, allowing them time to enjoy their meals. The atmosphere was sociable and relaxed. Fluids were provided and residents were encouraged to drink them. We looked at staff inductions, as concerns had been raised about whether they were used or not. The home has two induction programmes, one for permanent staff and one for agency staff. Both provide the essential information staff need when they begin working in the home (although the former is more detailed). The General Manager told us that on rare occasions (for example when there was a staffing crisis due to sickness) there had not been time to induct agency staff, and they`d had to start work immediately on arrival at the heme. The General Manager told us that when this happened agency staff worked under supervision at all times, and, if they returned to work at the home again, did their induction as the first possible opportunity. This is acceptable under the circumstances. Concerns had also been raised about the high percentage of agency staff on duty at the home. Records showed that the majority of staff employed at Barons Park were permanent, and that agency staff were mainly used to cover periods of sickness/annual leave. We saw there had been a particular problem in February 2010 when many of the permanent staff had been affected by a `sickness bug`. This led to disproportionate numbers of agency staff being employed on some shifts. However this was not the usual practice in the home.We asked residents what they thought of the staff employed at the home. Those we talked to praised them. Comments included, `The staff are very good, all of them`, and `The nurses are excellent.` One resident told us that he liked the way staff cared for confused residents. `They (the residents) can`t speak out, but I can, and I would if they (the staff) were every rough with a resident, but this never happens.` Staff files were inspected. Records showed that staff were properly inducted, trained, and supervised. Any performance issues that arose were promptly addressed in writing and followed up. Staff were trained in moving and handling, and in treating residents with respect and promoting their dignity. During this inspection concerns about medication, infection control, pressure sores, and palliative care were predominately addressed by Health and Social Services staff, and the findings shared with CQC. No serious anomalies were found in these areas.
What the care home could do better:
When we arrived at the home (at 5.30 am) six residents were either up, or in the process of getting up. We discussed this with staff and looked at care plans. We saw there was an explanation for each of these residents being up so early, and none had been got up against their will. However none of the care plans we looked at had clear instructions for staff as to what time each resident wanted to get up. In addition, one carer in the `over 70s` unit told us, `We start getting them (the residents) up at six.` This implied there was a routine for getting residents up which did not necessarily meet their individual needs, however we could not check this as the information was not available in care plans. To ensure residents get up (and go to bed) when they want to it must be clear in their care plans what their preferences are, or what is in their best interests. For example, some residents may be naturally early or late risers, or like to be woken up at a set time. Care plans must reflect this so staff know when to get each resident up. (The same applies to bedtimes.) This will help to ensure there are no institutional routines in the home and residents are treated as individuals. Records showed that some staff worked at Barons Park as well as at other establishments. This resulted, on occasions, in them working long hours. This situation should be monitored to ensure that staff are never too tired to carry out their duties effectively. We discussed Regulation 37s (records of significant incidents in the home) with the General Manager. These have been promptly reported to CQC, as required. The General Manager told us that Regulation 37 records are kept in individual resident`s case files. It is recommended that a separate file of Regulation 37s is kept, as this will make it easier for them to be audited and for trends to be detected, if and when they occur.