Sherrington House is a residential care home without nursing registered for up to 48 people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 46 people were using the service. The accommodation in Sherrington House is a purpose built care home over two floors

During our last inspection on 10 February 2015 the service was rated good overall, with all the key questions rated as good. During this inspection we found that the service remained good.

There was a registered manager at the service; they had been registered at this service since January 2016.

The people who lived in the service told us that they felt safe and well cared for. There were systems in place which provided guidance for care workers on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.

There were processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised. There were sufficient numbers of trained and well supported staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. They were recruited using a robust recruitment process for employing staff appropriately to care for vulnerable people.

Processes and procedures were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

Both the registered manager and the staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager knew how to make a referral if required. 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 support this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services.

We saw many examples of positive and caring interactions between the staff and people living in the service. People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints. Staff took steps to investigate complaints and to make any changes needed.

The registered manager was supported by the organisation and the staff they managed told us that the registered manager was open, supportive and had good management skills. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service offered people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We spoke with people who used the service but their feedback did not relate to this outcome.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had improved arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We conducted this inspection to follow up on our inspection September 2013 when we identified and raised concerns in relation to the way people’s medicines were being managed.

During this inspection we again assessed if people’s medicines were being managed safely and if arrangements were in place to protect people against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medication. We conducted a sample audit of medicines and found there were gaps in the records and that there were numerical discrepancies of medicines so we could not be assured people were being given their medicines as intended by prescribers. We noted some records were incomplete when people were not administered their medicines. We also noted some medicines had not been obtained and so they were not available to administer as intended by prescribers. We found that the morning medicine round was excessively lengthy. We also noted a lack of written information to assist staff in safely administering some medicines.

Whilst there were arrangements in place for the secure storage of medicines, we noted a lack of records confirming that medicines requiring refrigeration were stored within the accepted temperature range.

The service was clean and tidy on the day of our inspection. There were no offensive odours and the provider had taken steps to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from the risks of the spread of infection.

We noted that there were gaps in records of medicine administration and we could not be assured that medication was being administered as intended by the prescriber. There was not a system in place to check that the amount of medication people had received from the pharmacy was equal to the amount that had been administered or was still due to be administered.

The majority of the care records we looked at were accurate and we could see that they had been reviewed on a regular basis. This meant that staff had access to up to date information about people’s care needs to enable them to deliver safe and effective care.

Most of the people who used the service were not able to communicate with us. However, as part of our inspection we spoke with six people who were able to communicate in a limited way. We also spoke with six members of staff.

One person we spoke with told us, “To be honest some days it’s alright and some days it isn’t. Too many things going on and I like to be quiet.” Another person said, “The staff are great but sometimes other people are a bit noisy. The food is very good – I’ve got no complaints about that.”

We saw that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare.

Staff received appropriate professional development and were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications. We also saw that people had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint.

A member of staff told us, “I love this home. There is something special about it. You feel valued and you get lots of thanks from managers and colleagues.”

We found that there were not always effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. We also found that people’s personal records including medical records were not always accurate and fit for purpose.

People told us the home was well-run, the food was good, and the staff were kind and attentive.

Sherrington House is a residential care home without nursing registered for up to 48 people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 46 people were using the service. The accommodation in Sherrington House is a purpose built care home over two floors

During our last inspection on 10 February 2015 the service was rated good overall, with all the key questions rated as good. During this inspection we found that the service remained good.

There was a registered manager at the service; they had been registered at this service since January 2016.

The people who lived in the service told us that they felt safe and well cared for. There were systems in place which provided guidance for care workers on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.

There were processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised. There were sufficient numbers of trained and well supported staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. They were recruited using a robust recruitment process for employing staff appropriately to care for vulnerable people.

Processes and procedures were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

Both the registered manager and the staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager knew how to make a referral if required. 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 support this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services.

We saw many examples of positive and caring interactions between the staff and people living in the service. People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints. Staff took steps to investigate complaints and to make any changes needed.

The registered manager was supported by the organisation and the staff they managed told us that the registered manager was open, supportive and had good management skills. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service offered people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below