Teignbridge House Care Home Limited

People felt safe and protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff knew people well and were able to notice any changes. Systems were in place to keep people safe. Records showed staff had been trained in safeguarding and told us how they would report any concerns, they were confident these would be dealt with appropriately. Care plans and risk assessments were clear and gave good instructions to staff about how to keep people safe whilst minimising restrictions. There were enough staff to meet peoples’ needs and staff had been recruited safely. Systems were in place to support staff and make sure they had opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. Records showed a wide range of training had been completed. Individual accidents and incidents were reviewed and monitored to identify any developing trends that might indicate any changes in support. People’s medicines were looked after and administered safely, and they received them in the way prescribed.

Staff knew how to respond to peoples’ specific health and social care needs. They were able to recognise any changes in health. Staff were able to speak confidently about peoples’ needs and understood how they contributed to peoples’ health and safety and well-being. People were supported to see appropriate health professionals when necessary. We saw records of health professional input in a timely way.

People were supported by staff who were kind and respectful. Staff spoke confidently about peoples’ particular needs and how they liked to be supported. Staff described how they observed peoples’ moods and responded appropriately. Staff adopted a strong and visible personalised approach in how they worked with people. Staff treated people with dignity and respect when assisting with personal care ensuring the door was shut and that people were covered by a towel when washing for example. They explained what was happening before providing care and we saw staff ensuring people were comfortable before assisting them with a hoist, so they knew what to do. Staff respected people’s independence and encouraged people to move as much as they could to maintain mobility. People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them, and visitors were welcomed at any time.

People were treated as individuals and their views sought and listened to. They were asked for views on how they felt about the service and included in meetings about how the service was managed. People knew how to complain, and relatives said the service took action. For example, improving the laundry service. People said they had access to healthcare and that staff recognised when they were not feeling well. Health professionals expressed confidence in the staff and confirmed referrals were appropriate and timely. The staff were attentive and caring. People were supported to access the community, going for drives and visiting the garden centre for example during our visits. Appropriate activities and one to one sessions were organised well by the activity co-ordinator who knew peoples’ preferences and what they enjoyed.

The service had significantly improved since the last inspection in November 2023 and during this site visit there were no breaches. Therefore, our enforcement action was withdrawn. The provider had taken the concerns seriously and invested in a management company, employing a service improvement lead to address the issues and support management. We saw evidence of regular management meetings and the service improvement lead was working 20 hours a week and was available for advice when needed. The provider had invested in training, a mock inspection by an external consultant and Mental Capacity Act (MCA) expert. An up to date service improvement plan (SIP) showed how they had improved and managed their governance systems. The providers oversight and scrutiny systems were now more effective. For example, audits and monitoring was up to date to ensure people were safe. The new electronic care planning system was working well with detailed care plans. People's concerns and complaints were well-managed. The provider recognised the importance of learning lessons when things went wrong. Staff were clear about their responsibilities and roles and felt supported by the management team. Staff spoke positively about the leadership and culture of the service and felt people were being supported to lead a good quality life. People told us they were happy living at Teignbridge House and there had been resident, relative and staff meetings to communicate how the service was doing. One relative said, “I think Teignbridge House is a very good and caring place. I can feel relaxed, knowing my mother is being well looked after, and I would recommend it to anyone.”