Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


Inglefield Nursing & Residential Home, Totland Bay.

Inglefield Nursing & Residential Home in Totland Bay 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 and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 31st October 2019

Inglefield Nursing & Residential Home is managed by Buckland Care Limited who are also responsible for 6 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Inglefield Nursing & Residential Home
      Madeira Road
      Totland Bay
      PO39 0BJ
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01983755559
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

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

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-10-31
    Last Published 2018-10-02

Local Authority:

    Isle of Wight

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.

15th August 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 15 and 16 August 2018 and was unannounced.

Inglefield Nursing & Residential Home is a ‘care home’ and is registered to accommodate up to 49 people who require nursing or personal care. At the time of the inspection 39 people were accommodated at the home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This home provides a service to older people some living with dementia or mental health needs.

The home 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.

At our last inspection, in July 2017, we identified breaches of Regulations 10 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People were not always treated with consideration and quality assurance systems were not always effective. At this inspection, we found action had been taken and there were no longer any breaches of regulation. However, further improvement was still required.

Although new quality assurance procedures had recently been put in place, these needed further development and time to become embedded in practice and bring about the necessary improvement.

People had mixed views about the adequacy of staffing levels. Although we found these were adequate to meet people’s essential needs, we could not be assured that people’s call bells were always responded to in a timely way.

Recruitment procedures were not followed consistently, so the provider was unable to confirm that all staff employed were suitable.

Medicines were generally managed safely, although medication administration records had not been completed fully, some medicines could not be accounted for and there was a lack of information about when and how ‘as required’ medicines should be given.

People’s rights and freedom were not always protected. Although staff said they acted in people’s best interests, they did not always document decisions they had taken on behalf of people. There was no process to ensure applications were made to renew legal restrictions imposed on people’s freedom and staff did not know which people were subject to such restrictions.

People told us staff were competent and provided effective care; however, some staff training was out of date. Although nurses usually followed best practice guidance, we found they did not take a consistent, evidence-based approach to supporting people with diabetes.

Staff demonstrated a good awareness of the individual support needs of people living at the home. However, people’s care plans did not always support staff to deliver care in a personalised way; they lacked information about the support people needed when they became agitated and people’s end of life wishes and preferences had not been recorded.

Staff were appropriately supported in their role through one-to-one sessions of supervision, staff meetings and observations of their practice. Although some staff appraisals were overdue, plans were in place to complete these.

There was an open and transparent culture where visitors were welcomed. However, written information had not been provided to the family of a person who came to harm.

Individual and environmental risks to people were usually managed effectively and there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of infection.

People told us they felt safe living at Inglefield and staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from harm.

People's nutrition and hydration needs were met and most people were satisfied with the quality of their meals.

Som

12th July 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Inglefield Nursing and Residential Home is registered to accommodate up to 49 people who require nursing or personal care. At the time of the inspection, 44 people were living at the home.

The inspection was conducted on 12 and 13 July 2017 and was unannounced. There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At out last inspection, in October 2015, we identified a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Safe infection control procedures were not always followed; medicines were not always managed safely; and environmental risks were not always managed effectively. At this inspection we found action had been taken, although some further improvement was still needed.

Infection control procedures had improved and all areas of the home were clean. However, not all staff were up to date with their infection control training and some did not use individual hoist slings when supporting people to transfer; this posed a risk of cross infection.

Most individual and environmental risks to people were managed effectively. However, on one of the inspection days, staff took six minutes to locate specialist equipment which might have been needed in an emergency; and a known trip hazard in a person’s room had not been addressed. In addition, measures taken to reduce the risk of people developing pressure injuries had not been recorded to ensure staff followed them consistently.

An extensive programme of audits was conducted by the registered manager and a representative of the provider. However, these had not always been effective in bringing about improvement.

People’s dietary needs were met and they praised the quality of the meals, although we found the mealtimes were rushed and staff did not always show consideration for people they were supporting to eat. Some staff talked amongst themselves while others used inappropriate terminology when talking about people. However, other staff interacted positively with people.

Staff took a task-focused approach to the delivery of some aspects of people’s care and people told us their preferences were not always met, such as the time they went to bed. We have made a recommendation about this.

People told us they received effective nursing and personal care. Induction procedures for new staff were robust; however, some staff had not completed refresher training in essential subjects such as food hygiene and fire safety.

Staff told us they were supported in their work by managers and had one-to-one sessions of supervision, although only four had received an appraisal of their performance in the past year.

Care plans were reviewed regularly and provided comprehensive information to enable staff to meet people’s essential care and support needs. However, one person’s care plan lacked information about the support they needed when they became agitated.

A limited range of activities was provided, although these were not always well attended and were still being developed to meet people’s individual interests.

There were usually enough staff to meet people’s essential needs, although some people felt staff were rushed.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed to help ensure only suitable staff were employed. However, appropriate checks had not been completed for a volunteer who supported people with activities.

Staff protected people from the risk of abuse and the registered manager conducted thorough investigations into allegations of abuse.

People received their medicines as prescribed from staff who were suitably trained. They were supported to access other healthcare services when needed.

People’s

31st January 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We used a variety of methods to help us understand the experience of people using the service. We spoke with nine people using the service and three family members, and observed care and support being delivered. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We also looked at the care plans and associated records of care for six people. Care plans were signed by the person or on their behalf by a family member. Two family members told us they were involved in their relative’s care. Discussions with staff showed they knew people well. One person said of the staff, “They oblige you in every possible way.”

People we spoke with praised the quality of the care provided. One person said, “They look after me very well”. A family member told us they were “very happy with the care” provided to their relative. Risks were identified, assessed and managed through care plans and communication was effective between staff.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. People told us they were satisfied with the standards of cleanliness in the home. One person said, “I’ve got a lovely bed and everything’s clean”.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the 42 people living at the home. We looked at duty rosters, which showed staffing was organised in a way that ensured people’s needs were met. For example, an additional late shift had been introduced to accommodate the wishes of people who preferred to go to bed later in the evening.

People’s personal records were accurate and fit for purpose. We found they were comprehensive and centred on the person. They were reviewed at least monthly and updated when a person’s needs changed. Records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed. They were kept for the appropriate period of time and then destroyed securely.

29th January 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We looked at the processes that the provider had in place for managing medicines. We saw that all medicines that were received into the home were recorded in Medication Administration Records (MARs). We checked six medicines and found that they had been recorded accurately. We saw information in the MAR sheets indicating when ‘as required’ medication should be administered and in what doses. Medicines were kept securely and medication that had to be stored at a low temperature was kept in a locked fridge. Unused medicines were disposed of safely and were appropriately accounted for.

We also looked at the systems used by the provider to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. We found that the provider conducted regular surveys of residents and their families and consulted with people about how the service could be improved. Improvements had been made following these consultations, including an increase in the level of activities that people could access. We looked at the provider’s internal audits, including their arrangements for auditing medication. This identified two issues that had been addressed. We also looked at the most recent complaints that had been made. We saw that these had been investigated and appropriate action had been taken.

10th May 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with a number of people who were living at the home and some of their relatives. Some people were unable to tell us about their experiences due to their cognitive problems. To help us to understand the experiences of people, we spent time observing what was going on in the home. We observed how people spent their time, the support they received from staff and whether they had positive outcomes.

We observed interactions between the staff and people who use the service. People told us that they were treated with respect and that the staff were kind, courteous and supported them as needed. Two relatives commented that they felt lucky to have found this home as it was close to where they lived. They said this allowed them to visit their loved ones daily and sometimes twice a day. We were told that there was no restriction on visiting time. One person told us that they came in and helped their relative with their lunchtime meal. Another person told us that they were always welcomed by the staff and felt ‘this is the best place’ for their relative.

People commented that the food was’ very good’ and they had plenty to eat and drink. Two people told us that there were choices available to them.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 6 and 8 October 2015 and was unannounced. Inglefield Nursing Home provides accommodation for up to 43 people who have nursing care needs, including people living with dementia. There were 42 people living at the home when we visited.

There were two registered managers in place who had shared responsibilities for running the home. 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.

Some aspects of the service compromised people’s safety. Infection control procedures did not always follow best practice guidance and the provider was unable to confirm that cleaning had been completed effectively. The recording of medicines administered or creams applied was not always accurate. Checks had not identified that the thermometer used to monitor the temperature of the medicines fridge was faulty. Action had not been taken to reduce all risks posed by the environment, including an internal ramp that was too steep; trip hazards in corridors; a flight of steps in the garden; and unattended cleaning products. An alarm mat had not been put in place for a person who needed it, which put them at risk of falling.

All other risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed effectively. People told us they felt safe and staff knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. Suitable plans were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs at all times and recruitment procedure helped ensure only suitable staff were employed.

People received effective care from nursing and care staff who were suitably trained. New staff received effective induction to the home and all staff were appropriately supported in each of their roles. Staff followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and freedom. They sought consent from people before providing care and acted in people’s best interests at all times.

Most people were satisfied with the quality of the food which was varied and nutritious. People were encouraged to eat and drink and were given appropriate support when needed. People had access to healthcare professionals and were referred to health specialists when needed.

People were cared for with kindness and compassion and we observed positive interactions between people and staff. Staff knew people well and used their knowledge of people’s lives and backgrounds to strike up meaningful conversations and build relationships.

Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible and they protected people’s privacy and dignity at all times. People were encouraged to make choices, including whether they wished to receive care from a male of female member of staff and their choices were respected.

People (and their families where appropriate) were involved in assessing, planning and agreeing the nursing care and support they received. Family members were kept up to date with any changes to their relative’s needs.

People received flexible, personalised, care from staff who understood and met their needs well. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. Staff understood the needs of people living with dementia who had difficulty expressing themselves verbally. Best practice guidance was followed in relation to the care of people with diabetes.

Staff encouraged people to take part in a range of activities designed to meet their individual needs and interests. Feedback from people and relatives was sought and had led to changes in the way the service was provided. There was an appropriate complaints policy in place, which people were aware of.

People liked living at the home and felt it was run well. Staff understood their roles and worked well as a team. Good use was made of ‘support nurses’ which gave qualified nurses more time to provide nursing care. The registered managers were supported appropriately by the provider and had access to best practice guidance.

There was an open and transparent culture; visitors were welcomed and staff were encouraged to express their views. A range of audits were conducted to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.

We identified a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have taken at the back of the full version of the report.

 

 

Latest Additions: