Nightingale Court Care Home

“Risks associated with people’s health conditions and support needs were not always safely managed. Improvements were required in environmental safety, infection control, andrecruitment. Safeguarding concerns were not always shared with the relevant organisations and learning from incidents was not consistently implemented.”

“Governance systems were not always effective, and notifications had not always been sent to CQC as required by law.”

“There were enough staff to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff were supported through formal and informal channels and told us they enjoyed working at Nightingale Court. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.”

“The provider worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and respected people’s choices and decisions. Staff consistently demonstrated kindness and empathy and treated people in a respectful and dignified way.”

“The provider worked well with partner agencies to support people with their health.”

“People had care plans in place which documented their care and support needs although some required more detail to ensure consistent care. However, relatives told us staff knew people well and supported them in line with their needs.”

“The service had a positive culture, equality and diversity were respected and staff felt supported to speak up.”

“The registered manager and nominated individual demonstrated a desire to provide safe and person-centred care to people. They began making improvements at the time of the inspection and told us of their plans to continue with this. A nominated individual is the person who acts on behalf of the provider.”

“We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.”