Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Cann House Care Home, Tamerton Foliot Road, Plymouth.

Cann House Care Home in Tamerton Foliot Road, Plymouth is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, physical disabilities and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 16th August 2018

Cann House Care Home is managed by Premiere Health Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Cann House Care Home
      Cann House
      Tamerton Foliot Road
      Plymouth
      PL5 4LE
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01752771742
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Requires Improvement
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-08-16
    Last Published 2018-08-16

Local Authority:

    Plymouth

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

9th July 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The comprehensive inspection took place on the 9 and 10 July 2018.

When we inspected the service in September 2016 we found significant concerns in relation to people’s care and the running of the service. The service was rated as Inadequate overall and was placed in special measures. A condition was placed on the provider’s registration instructing them to provide the Care Quality Commission with a monthly report about how they were addressing the concerns raised and how they would improve and meet the regulations. We inspected the service again on the 16 and 17 May 2017 and found significant improvements had been made in all areas. Due to this improvement the conditions placed on the provider’s registration was removed. We found some improvements were still needed in relation to medicines, care planning and leadership, however, we could see that these areas were being addressed and improvements were still being embedded into the culture and running of the service. We rated the service as Requires Improvement at the May 2017 inspection.

At this inspection we found improvements found at the last inspection had been sustained and further embedded in the culture and the running of the service.

Cann 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.

The service provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 61 people. On the day of the inspection 47 people were living in the home. The service also provides assessment and rehabilitation to some people when they are discharged from hospital. This would normally be for a period of six weeks and is known as ‘Discharge to Assess (DTA). At the time of the inspection the service had 10 DTA beds, and five were occupied. The assessment and rehabilitation of people staying in a DTA bed was overseen by a DTA team, which included physiotherapists and occupational therapists. We spoke with the DTA team during the inspection and their feedback is detailed within the report.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People now lived in a service with good leadership. The providers caring values and commitment to improvement were embedded into the culture and staff practice. People, relatives, external professionals and staff spoke very positively about the management of the service. The registered manager also had a committed and passionate attitude about the service, the staff, but most of all the people. Staff spoke of their love for the people they cared for, and their passion for working at the service.

Staff knew people well, and were able to tell us about their care needs and how they needed to be delivered. Staff were well trained and knowledgeable about people’s health and social care needs and this was reflected in the practices we observed. People told us they felt their care needs were understood and well met by staff. However, some of the written information about people’s care arrangements still required some further improvement to ensure the care being delivered continued to be personalised and consistent.

Nursing staff were available to oversee and support clinical practice, and individual staff members undertook specific training such as end of life care and moving and handling. All staff were valued and encouraged to share and develop their knowledge. For example, each month a staff member produced an information board about a certain area of care, such as oral hygiene and recognising signs of sepsis, and this was displayed in the main hal

16th May 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on the 16 and 17 May 2017 and was unannounced.

Cann House provides nursing care and accommodation for up to 61 people. On the day of the inspection 51 people were living in the service. The service also provides assessment and rehabilitation to some people when they are discharged from hospital. This would normally be for a period of up to six weeks and is known as ‘Discharge to Assess’ (DTA) At the time of the inspection the service has 10 DTA beds, and seven were occupied. The assessment and rehabilitation of people staying in a DTA bed is overseen by a DTA team, which includes physiotherapists and occupational therapists.

At the last inspection on the 20, 21, 26 September 2016 we found significant concerns relating to medicines, risk, infection control, healthcare, privacy and dignity, care planning, complaints and leadership. We rated the service as inadequate overall. In line with our enforcement policy we made the decision to place conditions on the provider’s registration. We told the provider they must send us monthly reports to tell us about their progress to address the concerns raised. This condition would remain in place until we are satisfied sufficient improvements have been made.

The service has also been in Special Measures. Services are placed in special measures when they have been rated as inadequate overall. Services that are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, the service is now out of special measures.

At the time of the September 2016 Inspection the service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service.Like registered providers, they are ‘registered person’s’. Registered person’s 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 registered manager has now left the service and a new manager has been appointed. At the time of this inspection the new acting manager was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. We have referred to this person as the ‘acting manager’ throughout the report.

Following the last inspection in September 2016 we requested that the provider sent us monthly reports on their progress to address areas of concern we had found. We received reports as requested and also met with the provider and Plymouth City Council to discuss the action taken to improve the quality and safety of services provided to people at Cann House. The quality monitoring team for Plymouth City Council told us the provider and acting manager had worked closely with them and had been open and responsive when discussing the concerns found and action needed.

People, relatives and other agencies said they had seen improvements in the service during the last six months. Comments included, “They are doing a good job”, and “They have kept us updated and reassured us that improvements are being made”. The acting manager said they had spent time with staff discussing the concerns found at the last inspection and had considered what factors may have contributed to these failings. They said they had involved all the staff in these discussions and listened carefully to their views and feedback. The acting manager said they recognised the changes were work in progress, but felt positive progress had been made so far. Staff said improvements had been made and they felt more valued and involved in decisions about the service. Staff said they were very happy working in the home, and comments included, “Definite improvement since the new manager took over, morale is way up”, and “ There has been a

20th September 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in special measures.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again with six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within the timeframe. If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no longer than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

The inspection took place on the 20, 21 and 26 September 2016 and was unannounced.

Cann House provides nursing care and accommodation for up to 61people. On the day of the inspection 56 people were using the service. Cann House provides care for people with physical frailty, illness or disability.

The service had 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.

Prior to the inspection the Commission had received a number of concerns. These included, issues relating to staffing levels, the cleanliness of the environment and the handling of complaints.

We were also told people were at risk as they were not always provided with their prescribed medicines, and needs in relation to skin care, continence, and diabetes were not being met.

At this inspection we found people were not always protected from risks associated with their care because risk assessments were not always in place to provide guidance and direction to staff about how to keep people safe. Known risks in relation to people’s mental health were not always documented as part of their plan. Action had not been taken when people’s mental health deteriorated, which meant people did not receive the help they required.

People’s medicines were not managed, administered and stored safely. The service had introduced a new medicines system, which showed a large number of missed medicines. It was not possible to ascertain if these were actual errors or a problem with the new system and training of staff. Some people had not received their prescribed medicines as required. The management of medicines stock was poor. We found large quantities of stock unsafely stored, which could not in all cases be accounted for. Medicines were not always stored at the correct temperature.

Although infection control policies and procedures were in place, some practices did not protect people from the risk of infection. We found the treatment room to be cluttered and unclean. Bins for the disposal of medicines were dirty and in some cases broken and still in use. Slui

7th March 2013 - During an inspection in response to concerns pdf icon

We met with six people living in the home, and were able to observe several others. We also met with three visitors to the home and five of the ten staff on duty.

People who were living in the home said, “I am very happy indeed” and “I feel I am being cared for very well”. One person told us that the meals were “smashing “ and that they had choices of meals. We observed that some staff were better at supporting people to eat and drink than others.

Two visitors to the home said they were always made welcome and were able to bring in the family dog. This helped the person being visited to remain in contact with life at home.

People were complimentary about the caring attitude of the staff. We saw that not all areas of identified need, including risk of falls and changes of position were met by staff.

Regular checks had been carried out to monitor the safety of the home, staffing levels, the completion of care plans and the organisation of medicines to check that everything was in order and that tasks had been completed properly.

18th September 2012 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We toured the premises with the registered manager, seeing the lounge and dining rooms, bathrooms, the laundry, and some people’s private bedrooms. We met with 11 people living in the home, and were able to observe several others. We also met with three visitors to the home, one of the providers of the service, and six staff on duty.

People who were living in the home said, “I’ve got no complaints” and “We can do what we want.” One person told us that the meals were good and plentiful and there were always hot and cold drinks available showing that people received sufficient food and drink.

One visitor to the home said “They make me very welcome. They all work together to care for (my relative).” Another said their relative “loves it here.” One said, “They look after her better than they used to, and the care is good when they are fully staffed. People sometimes have to wait when they don’t cover for sickness”.

The registered manager showed us the rotas and told us how the staffing had been increased, in particular with shifts that covered the busy times of day.

We found that the house was clean and tidy throughout, and all the equipment we saw was clean. Regular checks had been carried out to monitor the safety of the home, the completion of care plans and the organisation of medicines, to check that everything was in order and that tasks had been completed properly.

24th January 2012 - During an inspection in response to concerns pdf icon

The people we spoke to at Cann House were positive about the care and treatment they or their relatives had received. The people that used the service said they felt involved in their care and understood the treatment they were receiving and had been told about the options open to them. People told us that the staff were respectful and that they felt listened to.

We spoke to one person during our visit about the reason for their admission and the care provided to them. They told us that they understood both why they were living at the home and the care they were receiving.

People told us that their privacy and dignity was respected and that they were encouraged to express preferences and choices about their care and treatment.

We spoke to seven people during our visit, some of whom were living at the home and others who were visiting. People we spoke to were generally complimentary about the service provided by the care home.

One person told us that the staff were friendly and caring and that they brought drinks and food to them regularly. Another person that chose to mostly stay in their room said that they saw the staff regularly and that they spent time talking with them.

A relative told us that the staff, “were keeping a close eye” on their relative’s condition and that any concerns they had were being addressed immediately.

The staff team had a good knowledge of people's needs and were meeting these needs. However, the assessments, care plans and risk assessments to manage people’s care were not adequate. They did not provide individualised, thorough, or comprehensive assessment or planning of people’s care needs.

The systems that were in place to support people who were at risk of not consuming enough food or drinks were not robust enough to make sure that people that needed this support were being consistently supported.

On the day of our visit we found that the care home was clean and people confirmed to us that this was always the case. Some of the equipment being used by people was not being kept clean and some systems for cleaning were not in place.

We saw that people’s medication was being managed safely and that the homes medication administration systems were meeting people’s needs.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on 4 and 5 November 2015 and was unannounced.

Cann House provides nursing care and accommodation for up to 62 people. On the day of the inspection 54 people were using the service. Cann House provides care for people with physical frailty, illness or disability.

The service had 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.

People and staff were relaxed throughout our inspection. There was a very calm, friendly and homely atmosphere. People told us they enjoyed living at Cann House. Comments included, “I’m really happy here, I feel very lucky” and “I love living here”.

People spoke highly about the care and support they received, one person said, “The carers all know what they are doing, I’m very happy”. Care records contained detailed information about people’s health and social care needs. Staff responded quickly to people’s change in needs.

People were supported by staff who put them at the heart of their work. Staff exhibited a kind and compassionate attitude towards people. Strong relationships had been developed and practice was person focused and not task led. Staff had an appreciation of how to respect people’s individual needs around their privacy and dignity.

People were supported by staff who understood and managed risk effectively. Risk assessments recorded concerns and noted actions required to address risk and maintain people’s independence. People were promoted to live full and active lives. Activities reflected people’s interests and staff understood the importance of companionship and social contact.

People had their medicines managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed, received them on time and understood what they were for. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to healthcare professionals, such as GPs, social workers, stroke nurses and speech and language therapists.

People told us they felt safe. All staff had undertaken training on safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, they displayed good knowledge on how to report any concerns and described what action they would take to protect people against harm. Staff told us they felt confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated.

People were protected by the service’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which determined they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment.

Staff received a comprehensive induction programme. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were appropriately trained and had the correct skills to carry out their roles effectively.

Relatives and friends were always made to feel welcome, and people were supported to maintain relationships with those who mattered to them. People and those who mattered to them knew how to raise concerns and make complaints. Complaints that had been made, had been thoroughly investigated and recorded in line with Cann House’s own policy.

Staff described the management to be supportive and approachable. Staff talked positively about their jobs. Comments included, “I feel valued, supported and empowered”, “I love my job and feel appreciated” and “I enjoy working here, I feel respected by the manger and I do get thanked”.

Staff understood their role with regards the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Applications were made and advice was sought to help safeguard people and respect their human rights.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place. Incidents were appropriately recorded and analysed. Learning from incidents and concerns raised was used to help drive improvements, and ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support provided by the service.

 

 

Latest Additions: