Russell House Care Home Case Study

Russell House Care Home Case Study

case study writing services,help writing case study,assistance with writing a case study,case study writing services online,case study writing help

About the Book

Russell House Care Home Case Study

The inspection took place on the 9 and 10 May 2017. It was an unannounced inspection of the service which meant the provider did not know we were coming.We previously inspected the service on the 1 and 2 March 2016. At that inspection the provider was in breach of one regulation and received an overall requires improvement rating. This inspection was a comprehensive inspection to review the overall rating. We found the requirement made at the previous inspection had been met.

Russell house is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to twenty people with epilepsy, learning and/or physical disabilities. The home had been purpose built and is made up of four units. Each unit accommodates five people. There are two units on the ground floor and two units on the first floor with lift access available to the first floor. At the time of our inspection there were eighteen people
living in the home.

There was 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 and relatives were happy with the care provided. They described the permanent staff as caring and supportive of their family members. They felt staff had the skills and understanding to care for people. However, relatives were concerned about the staff vacancy levels and they felt this led to inconsistent care for their family members.

We found the home provided caring and responsive care to people. Improvements were necessary to ensure the service was safe, effective and well-led. Aspects of the service were being audited. However regular effective auditing was not taking place to enable the provider to address issues in a timely manner. Records were not suitably maintained in that some records were incomplete, not signed and dated.
People were consented with on their day to day care but the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was not understood and followed. A recommendation has been made to address this.

Systems were in place to promote communication and ensure staff were aware of people’s needs. Staff did not routinely sign to indicate they had read the relevant records to promote safe care therefore it was not clear how staff ensured they were up to date on recent changes in people’s support needs. Risks to people were identified. However a staff member was not aware of the risks associated with people’s care which meant those risks were not safely managed. A recommendation has been made for the provider to have a 3 Russell House Inspection report 26 June 2017 system in place to satisfy themselves that staff are up to date on people’s care needs and associated risks. Systems were in place to promote safe medicine practices. However one person’s allergies to medicines were not highlighted and known by one member of staff spoken with during the inspection. This was highlighted to the manager who immediately took action.

Details
Book Club Resources
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the page above are "affiliate links." This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."