Meeting this standard We checked that people who use this service • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff. How this check was done We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 26 November 2013, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider. We reviewed information sent to us by other authorities and talked with other authorities. Our judgement There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.
The provider had responded to unexpected changing circumstances in the service and had taken action to ensure there were sufficient staff working across all shifts. Reasons for our judgement Before our inspection we had received information that there were not enough care staff within the main house to meet the needs of the people who lived there.
Nursing ▫ Patient dependency ▫ Psychometric tools ▫ Unit resources. (1980) ward elderly ward behaviour and assessments of 12 physical. Pairs of raters. Formula provided compared. Rating Scales for calculating. Barr A, Moores B, Rhys-Hearn C (1973) A review of the various methods of. And Rhys Hearn, 1981; Donaldson et al., 1983. Diesfeldt et al., 1986; Cox et al., 1993; Loewenstein et al., 1995). This increase in care dependency is related to various factors. As depicted in Fig. 1, in this study these factors were grouped in socio-demographic and. International Journal of Nursing Studies 36 (1999) 487±.
At the time of our visit, 14 people were living in the main house. Some people had complex health needs and we asked the registered manager about the number of staff needed to meet their needs.
We were told that the provider’s operations manager had used the ‘Staffing guidance for Nursing Homes’ and the ‘Rhys Hearn Dependency Assessment Tool’ to calculate the home’s staffing levels. We looked at both documents which highlighted points for consideration such as: the ratio of staff to patients, the dependency levels of patients, and competencies and experience of staff. We were told that four care staff and one registered nurse worked across the morning and afternoon shifts in the main house. The morning shift started at 8am and finished at 8pm. However, we noted that some staff finished work at 2pm. The night shift started at 8pm and finished at 8am and it had been determined that people’s needs could be met by two care staff and one registered nurse.
Staff told us that the calculated number of care staff working across all shifts was appropriate for the number of people who lived in the main house. Before our inspection, we were told there had been a problem with staffing levels in the main house. We shared these concerns with the registered manager who told us this had been caused by a number of staff leaving the home without giving notice. Plans had been put in place to address the staff shortfall and these included asking existing staff to cover extra shifts along with the use of agency staff.
The registered manager told us that on occasions they had been unable to cover all shifts which left them short staffed. We were told about plans for recruiting additional staff. Five staff were waiting for the necessary pre-employment checks to be completed. A further two had been shortlisted and were waiting to be interviewed. This demonstrated that there were systems in place to maintain staffing levels during the recruitment process. However, the registered manager acknowledged that it was not always possible to achieve this.
We looked at the staff rota for the week commencing 25 November 2013. This showed that on three afternoons the main house had operated with staffing levels below their own recommendations. Three instead of four care assistants had worked from 2pm until 8pm on 25 and 28 November, and on 1 December 2013.
We also noted that only three care assistants worked on the morning of 25 and 28 November 2013. The registered manager told us that staff absences were due to sickness and agency staff had been requested but were unvailable. When we spoke to staff they confirmed that staffing levels had been a problem. When they were short staffed staff said, it took more time to meet people’s needs, particularly when people required two members of staff to assist them. On the day of our visit, we were told that another person with complex care needs had recently been admitted to the home. Staffing numbers had been increased to ensure that the needs of people living in the main house would be met. Staff told us they welcomed the additional staff as it would be easier to care for people living in the home.
Courtyard Houses A Housing Typology Pdf Editor. Staff said they would also have more time to update people’s care records. Staff hoped new staff would reduce the need for agency staff who needed supervision when assisting people. A member of staff said, “I think good care is provided” to people living in the home.
When we looked at staff training records, we saw the provider had offered training in areas such as: moving and handling, fire safety, principles of care and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Some of these were classroom based and others were online courses that staff completed at work or at home. An extensive induction programme was offered to all new care assistants who were also encouraged to com.
Inspection ratings We rate most services according to how safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led they are, using four levels: Outstanding – the service is performing exceptionally well. Good – the service is performing well and meeting our expectations. Requires improvement – the service isn't performing as well as it should and we have told the service how it must improve. Inadequate – the service is performing badly and we've taken enforcement action against the provider of the service. No rating/under appeal/rating suspended – there are some services which we can’t rate, while some might be under appeal from the provider.
Suspended ratings are being reviewed by us and will be published soon. Ticks and crosses We don't rate every type of service. For services we haven't rated we use ticks and crosses to show whether we've asked them to take further action or taken enforcement action against them.
There's no need for the service to take further action. If this service has not had a CQC inspection since it registered with us, our judgement may be based on our assessment of declarations and evidence supplied by the service. The service must make improvements. At least one standard in this area was not being met when we inspected the service and we have taken enforcement action.