What the CQC found at Spratslade House Care Home

Inspectors saw staff supporting people compassionately and protecting their dignity and privacy. People and relatives reported positive relationships with staff.

“We observed staff supporting people in a caring and compassionate manner.” from the report

Care plans described people's routines, preferences and support needs. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care.

“People's care plans were personalised and placed people's views and needs at the centre of the care provided.” from the report

Staff were trained and checked before giving medicines. Records, storage, as-required medicines and monthly audits were found to be safe.

“Medicines were managed safely. There were quality checks in place and staff received appropriate training before being able to administer medication.” from the report

Staff understood consent, mental capacity and legal safeguards. Inspectors saw staff seeking consent and respecting people's choices.

“People's human rights were protected by staff who demonstrated a clear understanding of consent, mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards legislation and guidance” from the report

Records did not always show the right level of risk or the required weighing schedule. One person had lost 7.6 kilograms but was recorded as being at medium rather than high risk.

“Peoples risk with weight loss was not always managed in a safe way.” from the report

Turning charts were inconsistent and care files did not say clearly how often some people should be repositioned. One moving and handling assessment had not been completed.

“People's care files did not appropriately identify risks to allow staff to ensure people's risk of pressure ulceration was managed in a safe way.” from the report

Audits had identified some problems, but the home had not put improvements into practice. Updated information was not always passed on to staff.

“Audits from June 2019 had highlighted some of the areas of concern we found on our inspection, but service improvements had not been implemented.” from the report

The home could not show a full employment history for some staff. At the inspection, not all mandatory training had been completed on time, although later evidence showed it was up to date.

“The registered manager could not always evidence they had taken a full employment history of some staff.” from the report

The home was not supporting anyone with end-of-life care during the visit, but it had not always discussed or recorded people's wishes for future care.

“The registered manager had not given people the opportunity to discuss their end-of-life wishes as these were not always recorded in their care plans.” from the report