Poplars Care Home is a residential care home for 27 older people with a range of needs, including living with dementia.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

Rating at this inspection

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

The Poplars Care Home continues to support people safely and appropriately.

People, relatives and professionals gave us positive feedback on the service and the care that was provided to people using the service.

We also observed caring and professional interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff were attentive and made sure people were comfortable and safe.

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.

Staff received training on safeguarding adults and knew what action to take if they suspected a person was at risk of harm.

People were supported in a caring way and their care was tailored to meet their individual needs and interests.

People were supported to maintain relationships with their family and friends. This included seeing them and using technology, with the support from staff, to email family members to keep in regular contact.

Improvements had been made to the environment and rooms were brighter and offered people the chance to reminisce about the past. The environment, including the garden, was welcoming and gave people the chance to spend time in different areas of the service.

Systems were in place to ensure people safely received their medicines when required.

There were sufficient numbers of staff working in the service and this was reviewed on a regular basis.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure checks were carried out on new staff before they worked with the people using the service.

Training and support was available for all staff members to help them gain the skills to support people with various needs and they received information on current good practice.

People’s needs and presenting risks were assessed and reviewed to ensure staff understood and knew people’s current needs and abilities.

People were involved in their care and were asked for their views on a range of subjects, including the meal provision and activities.

People were happy with the meal provision and we saw they were offered plenty of drinks throughout the inspection to ensure they were hydrated.

There were various activities on offer for people each day. This included group and one to one sessions. Trips out in the community were also arranged.

Some people were able to make a complaint if they were unhappy and they also had the support of their family members who could also represent their views.

There were audits and checks in place to monitor the quality of service provision. These checked different aspects of the service to identify any problems and to see what was working well.

There was a registered manager in post and a deputy manager who was in the process of becoming the registered manager. The management team were experienced and were receptive to the inspection. They showed a passion for the support and care people received and the improvements they had made and wanted to make in the future.

The service continued to meet all relevant fundamental standards.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We spoke with six people using the service, two visitors and seven staff. We also viewed the most recent local authority monitoring visit report for the service.

People told us they were being well cared for. Several of those spoken with said “the staff are very good” and a visitor said “the staff are fantastic”. We observed staff interacting well with people, listening to what they had to say and providing them with the help and support they needed. People using the service were dressed to reflect individuality and looked well cared for.

People had mixed opinions about the meals. Some liked it while others said it was not always good. People confirmed that the food provision was discussed at meetings, but action did not always seem to be taken to address the issues they raised. We saw that people’s weights were monitored and action taken should a concern be identified.

Medicines were well managed and medicine records were accurate and up to date. Where people were able to self-medicate, this was encouraged and protocols were in place to manage this effectively and to maintain their independence.

Equipment in use in the home was in working order and servicing had been carried out at the required intervals.

Staff confirmed they undertook a variety of training to provide them with the knowledge and skills to care for people effectively.

We spoke with six people using the service, eight staff and four visitors. As part of this planned review we looked at some areas of concern that had been brought to the attention of CQC.

People confirmed the staff were polite and treated them with respect. Some people said they had been involved with their care plan. Several people and visitors commented on the ‘friendliness’ of the staff. One person said “I have always been very happy here” and a visitor told us “I don’t think you can get much better”. People told us they were able to make choices, for example menu choices, joining in activities and when they wanted to get up and retire to bed, allowing them to make decisions for themselves about their care and treatment.

People said staff gave them the help they needed. One person said “the staff are very kind and watch our health”. They said the staff weighed them regularly and also contacted the GP if they were unwell. People said they enjoyed the activities and there was a good variety to choose from.

People told us they liked the food and that choices were offered. Comments included: “the chef is marvellous” and the food is “very good”. People confirmed they chose the meals they wanted and if there was not a choice that they wanted they could ask for an alternative.

People said they did not have any concerns but if they did they would speak with the provider about them. Visitors told us they were actively encouraged to raise issues and when they had done so they had always been addressed. People confirmed they felt there were enough staff on duty at all times. Most people told us staff answered their call bells promptly.

People said the staff gave them choices about their care, for example, a choice of menu at mealtimes. They said staff treated them well and listened to them. One person said that they were able to choose what to wear each day, and people were dressed to reflect individuality. Visitors said that they were kept informed of any issues with their relative. A visitor told us staff were very caring and respectful. People said that they had been asked their opinions in respect of their care and treatment needs and how these were to be met.

People we asked said that they had been involved in their care plan reviews and they had the opportunity to comment and be involved in their care plan. People told us that staff looked after them well and were there to help them.

Most people told us that they liked the food and were offered a choice of meals. Some people said the food could be ‘variable’, but was mainly good. They said they felt able to comment if they did not like something, and an alternative would be provided.

People said they could raise any concerns with the staff and manager, and that these would be addressed.

This review was carried out to follow up the shortfalls identified in the previous review and also because of information received since that review.

People told us that staff listen to what they say and treat them with respect. We observed that staff’s interaction with people was positive. Staff communicated well with people they were supporting, explaining what they were doing so that people knew what was about to happen.

People reported that staff would come if they rung their call bell. One person said in a report that we saw that they did not like to ring the call bell at night because they did not like to disturb staff and another person told us that some staff did not like it when they rung the bell at night.

All the people we spoke to told us that they like the food provided at the home and that they have choices about what they eat and when to eat. People said that they could have an alternative meal if they did not like the meal on the menu. One person said, “The food is always good here”.

People said that staff knew their needs well and provided very good care. They added that staff were available when they needed them. People told us that staff were polite and treated them with respect. One person said, “They [staff] are very good, very friendly” and other people described staff as “kind”, “caring” and “polite”.

People said that they were pleased with the facilities offered by the home and its location. They liked their rooms and told us that they were able to bring some of their possessions with them when they were admitted. They told us that they go shopping or for walks to the high street that was about two to three minutes walk away.

We visited Poplars Care Home on the 9 and 21 July 2011.

Poplars Care Home provides accommodation and personal care support for up to 27 older people. It does not provide nursing care. There were 23 people living in the service at the time of the inspection.

The last inspection on the 24 April 2013 found the registered provider had met the regulations we checked.

This inspection visit was unannounced and took place on 20 and 23 February 2015.

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.

The provider had taken appropriate steps to keep people safe and had risk assessed the needs of each individual. The staff had information and training on recognising and reporting abuse and knew what to do if they felt concerned about anyone’s wellbeing.

People were given the support they needed to take their medicines and to stay healthy.

People’s care records were relevant to their individual needs and staff checked these on a monthly basis, or sooner, to make sure they had all the correct information about each person. This helped them safely support and care for them.

People and their relatives or friends, where appropriate, were involved in aspects of their care. We saw evidence that people’s opinions were obtained on how they wanted to be supported and their personal preferences were clearly recorded.

People’s views were sought on a one to one basis, in a group and through completing satisfaction questionnaires.

There were sufficient numbers of staff working in the service and the provider carried out detailed employment checks on new staff before they started working with people.

Staff received ongoing support and training relevant to their roles and responsibilities.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). There were some restrictions in place for people’s safety, for example the front door was locked and the use of bed rails, which had been assessed and the relevant forms had been submitted to the local authority for them to assess what decisions were in each person’s best interests.

People told us they knew about the provider’s complaints procedure. They were confident the provider and the registered manager would respond to any concerns they might have.

Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and to make improvements where necessary.