Corinthian House

Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely and that individual risks were assessed and monitored. There had also been better monitoring of choking risks, weight loss and PEG care.

“Medicines were managed safely. Individual risks to people were effectively assessed and monitored.” from the report

People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Inspectors saw patient and supportive interactions and a friendly atmosphere.

“The home had a friendly, welcoming atmosphere and staff were professional, kind and caring.” from the report

Staff knew people's food preferences and dietary needs. Weight loss was monitored more closely and actions were followed up.

“There were improvements in the way people were supported with their nutritional needs.” from the report

The home offered games, outings and visits, and staff adapted communication where needed. A resident ambassador also helped gather people's views.

“Organised activities were available, such as games, and people enjoyed outings to local places as well as visits from an assistance dog.” from the report

Daily records did not always show clearly and promptly what care people needed and received. The home's audits had identified this but had not fixed it consistently.

“Recording of people's daily care needed to be more consistent and detailed.” from the report

The systems for checking quality and managing risks were not yet robust or fully embedded. This was the reason the home remained in breach of Regulation 17.

“Systems were not yet robust enough or fully embedded to demonstrate effective oversight and management of the service, or to ensure records of care were complete and up to date.” from the report

People, relatives and staff gave mixed feedback about staffing. Staff said personal care could be rushed and that they did not always have time to support people with showers.

“Staff told us they did not always have enough time to support people with their personal care, and completing care tasks was often rushed.” from the report

Some people stayed in bed or in their rooms, and it was not always clear whether this reflected choice or assessed need. They could have fewer opportunities for regular interaction.

“When people were supported to be in the communal areas, there was not always enough for them to do, or opportunities for consistent interaction with staff.” from the report

Some people and relatives said there were not always regular opportunities for baths or showers. The provider agreed to review this, including the possible link with staffing levels.

“Most people told us they had no concerns about support for personal care, although some people and relatives said showers were still not frequent.” from the report