CareQualityCommission

 

Summary and extracts from the Care Quality Commission Report December 2016

Rustington Hall was inspected by the CQC on 8th and 9th December 2016 and was awarded with the following ratings:

Is the service safe?                                                          Good  ● 

The service was safe.

People felt safe in the home with people who cared for them; staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people and kept them safe.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure people’s safety and maximise their potential to remain independent.

There were sufficient staff; staffing levels were reviewed regularly to ensure people’s needs could be met.

Recruitment practices ensured that people were safeguarded against the risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff.

There were safe systems in place for the administration of medicines.

Is the service effective?                                                   Good  ● 

The service was effective.

People received support from a motivated staff team which was skilled and trained to meet their needs and who received on-going support and supervision from management.

People were involved in decisions about the way their support was delivered; staff clearly understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 following the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard.

People had access to a healthy balanced and varied diet and attention was paid to keeping people well hydrated; their health care needs were closely monitored and they accessed other health professionals when needed.

Is the service caring?                                                        Good  ●

The service was caring.

People received their support from staff that were friendly and kind and who always showed respect and compassion.

Staff continually strived to provide individualised person centred care and ensured that people’s privacy and dignity was protected.

People were encouraged to express their views and to make choices and influence the development of the service.

Family and friends were encouraged to contribute to care plans and all visitors were made to feel welcome at any time.

The service provided very good end of life care. People experienced a comfortable, dignified death in line with their wishes.

Is the service responsible?                                               Good  ●

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed before they came to stay at the home and a person centred care plan was put in place.

People’s needs were continually kept under review and relevant assessments were carried out to help support their care provision and care adjusted as needed.

People were encouraged and enabled to take part in group or individual activities to support their interests and general well-being.

People were encouraged to raise concerns and make suggestions and there was information provided to them and their families as to how to make a complaint.

Is the service well-led?                                          Outstanding   ★

The service was exceptionally well-led.

The provider put people at the heart of everything and was proactive in seeking people’s views and experience of their care and support to enable them to continually look at ways to improve the service and enhance people’s experience.

There was a culture of openness and transparency; the management team led by example and inspired the staff to provide the best possible person centred care and experience for people and their families.

People could be assured that the quality assurance systems in place were effective and any shortfalls found were quickly addressed; there was a constant strive to ensure that standards were maintained.

The full report can be seen by clicking on the following link:

CQC Report