Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


Consort House Nursing Home, Torr Lane, Plymouth.

Consort House Nursing Home in Torr Lane, 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, dementia, physical disabilities and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 14th December 2019

Consort House Nursing Home is managed by Xcel Care Homes Ltd.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Consort House Nursing Home
      35 Consort Close
      Torr Lane
      Plymouth
      PL3 5TX
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01752789861

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

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

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-12-14
    Last Published 2017-05-18

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.

6th April 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Consort House Nursing Home provides care and accommodation for up to 58 older people who live with a physical disability or dementia. The service is on three floors, with access to the upper floors by a passenger lift or stairs. On the day of the inspection there were 51 people living at the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service overall remained Good but improvements were required in well-led.

Why the service is rated good:

People told us they felt safe. They also told us there were enough staff to meet their individual needs and support them with their social interests. Since our last inspection there had been improvements in the response time in answering people’s call bells and to how people’s medicines were managed. People lived in a clean environment, free from odour.

People were cared for by competent staff who knew how they wanted and needed to be supported. People told us the meals were nice, but people who required assistance sometimes had to wait for staff to become available. So following our inspection immediate action was being taken to enhance the overall dining experience for people and to review staffing levels at this important time. 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 were treated with kindness and they and their families were encouraged to be involved in decisions relating to their care. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. People were cared for and supported at the end of their life by compassionate and trained staff.

People received care which was personalised and they had access to external healthcare professionals to help promote their health and wellbeing.

People’s complaints were used positively and as an opportunity to improve the service. The service was well led by a registered manager and provider who were open and approachable. People and staff chatted happily with the manager and had lots of opportunities to share their views. People’s personal records were not always locked away; however at the time of our inspection the registered manager took action. The provider’s quality monitoring systems were not always effective in identifying areas which required improvement; therefore the registered manager told us action would be taken to rectify this.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

12th December 2011 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

On the day of our visit we walked around the home and spoke with 9 of the people that use the service and one relative. We also spoke with Registered nurses, senior staff, care staff and domiciliary staff.

People told us that Consort House was “very nice” and said “its everything I need". One person said she got “treated very well ”. We asked people what made the care given by the home so good. People told us that all of the care and support they received was good and that the staff were friendly, helpful and patient. Throughout this visit we saw staff talking to people in a kind and friendly way and caring for people in a polite and professional manner.

The staff said that they enjoyed working at the home and supporting the people that lived there. All the staff we spoke to said that big improvements had been made in the past month and that they now “enjoyed coming to work again”. The atmosphere throughout the home was friendly yet organised and calm.

The staff ensure through the way they deliver care and support that everyone’s privacy and dignity was respected and protected. For example we saw staff talking with people in a friendly but also respectful manner and we saw support being offered with sensitivity and care.

We saw that the home was clean and hygienic throughout and that the building and facilities and equipment were being adequately maintained.

People said they knew how and to whom to complain.

Some of the care planning documentation that was being used could be improved by regular auditing in order to better support the delivery of care.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on 2 and 7 April 2015 and was unannounced.

Consort House Nursing Home provides care and accommodation for up to 58 people. On the day of the inspection 53 people lived in the home. Consort House Nursing Home provides care for people with physical and mental health conditions which includes people living with dementia.

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 had not had their medicines managed safely. Medicines administration records were all in place, but had not all been correctly completed. An action plan had been put in place to address all the issues found. Processes had been changed and fed back to staff. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to healthcare professionals, such as GPs, speech and language therapists and dieticians.

Call bells were not always answered promptly. Action had been taken to address this concern. Records showed and people told us improvements had been made in call bell response times. One person said, “There was a problem with the time it took staff to arrive after I had pressed my bell. The manager was made aware of this and things are certainly getting better”.

During the inspection people and staff were relaxed, the environment was clean and clutter free. There was a calm and pleasant atmosphere. People confirmed they had the freedom to move around freely as they chose and enjoyed living in the home. Comments included; “I love living here” and “Staff are very kind indeed, I enjoy the company and have quite a laugh”.

Staff responded quickly to people’s change in needs. People and those who matter to them were involved in identifying their needs and how they would like to be supported. People preferences were sought and respected. People’s life histories, disabilities and abilities were taken into account, communicated and recorded, so staff provided consistent personalised care, treatment and support.

People’s risks were managed well and monitored. There was a culture of learning from mistakes. Accidents and safeguarding concerns were managed promptly. Investigations were thorough and action was taken to address areas where improvements were needed. There were effective quality assurance systems in place. Incidents were appropriately recorded and analysed.

People were promoted to live full and active lives and were supported to go out and use local services and facilities. Activities were meaningful and reflected people’s interests and individual hobbies. People told us they enjoyed the variety of activities the staff enabled them to take part in.

One person commented, “I really enjoy all the games we get to play, I like being around people. Everyone is so friendly and there’s always so much to do”.

People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet. Dietary and nutritional specialists’ advice was sought so that people with complex needs in their eating and drinking were supported effectively. People told us they enjoyed their meals and did not feel rushed. Comments included, “The food is excellent, top class” and “Brilliant food, plenty of it, very good indeed”.

People, friends, relatives and staff were encouraged to be involved and help drive continuous improvements. Meetings were held and questionnaires were sent to help ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support provided by the service.

People knew how to raise concerns and make complaints. People told us concerns raised had been dealt with promptly and satisfactorily. Any complaints made were thoroughly investigated and recorded in line with Consort House’s own policy. One person said “I have no hesitation in raising any concerns I have; it is always quickly put right, I’m very happy”.

People told us they felt safe. Advice was sought to help safeguard people and respect their human rights. All staff 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. The manager had sought and acted on advice where they thought people’s freedom was being restricted. People were asked and gave their consent to their care. This helped to ensure people’s rights were protected.

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. One staff member said: “We are so well supported and we get so much training it helps me have confidence.” The service followed safe recruitment practices to help ensure staff were suitable to carry out their role.

Staff described the management as very open, supportive and approachable. Staff talked positively about their jobs. Comments included: “I really enjoy working here.”; “I do like my job, the support is excellent and I feel motivated” and “I happy and enjoy my job, I can’t say much more than that”.

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 continuous improvements.

 

 

Latest Additions: