Archived: Rose House

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Appropriate safeguarding procedures were in place. Risk assessments provided information about how to support people in a safe manner. Procedures were in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Medicines were manages in a safe manner. Steps had been taken to promote the safety of the premises. Robust staff recruitment practices were in place.

Staff received on-going training to support them in their role. People were able to make choices for themselves and the service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us they enjoyed the food. People were supported to access relevant health care professionals. Systems were in place for the assessment of need for prospective people to use the service.

People told us they were treated with respect and that staff were caring. Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s privacy, independence and dignity.

Care plans were in place which set out how to meet people’s individual needs. Care plans were subject to regular review. People were supported to engage in various activities. The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

Staff and people spoke positively about the senior staff at the service. Quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place which included seeking the views of people who used the service.

Care plans were in place about end of life care. However, these were not always comprehensive and we have made a recommendation about this.

This unannounced inspection took place on 31 March 2016. The service was last inspected on 22 May 2014 and met all the regulations we checked.

Rose House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to four people with learning disabilities with learning disabilities or who need support to maintain their mental health. At the time of the inspection, there were four people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are “registered persons”. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and a relative told us that they liked the home and people were safe. However, we noted that there were not always enough staff on shift to provide appropriate care and ensure people's safety.

People's care files contained risk assessments and guidance for staff on how to manage identified risks. We noted staff knew how to support people by reducing risks to them. We found that medicines were well managed and each person received their medicine as prescribed by their doctors.

People and a relative told us the staff were caring and good at providing supporting people. We observed staff explain to people the reason why they needed to do certain activities such as washing hands. This showed that staff were knowledgeable about how to effectively communicate with people. Staff had received supervision, support and various training in areas relevant to their roles. For example, they had received training in Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff supported people to engage in different activities in the home and in the community. We saw, and records confirmed, that people took part in activities in the home and were supported to go out into the community. Care plans showed that people's needs were detailed, reviewed and personalised. It was evident that people and their relatives were involved in formulating the care plans.

The service had a complaints procedure and people and a relative told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about the service. The registered manager told us all complaints would be recorded and investigated to ensure that people's concerns were addressed. We noted that people, relatives and staff had opportunities to share their experience through meetings and surveys facilitated by the registered manager.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Each person using the service had a care plan and risk assessment which meant that possible risk to people had been identified and action put in place to manage the risks. Staff had attended training courses which included safeguarding adults and health and safety to ensure that people were protected from abuse and received care and support that met their needs.

Is the service effective?

The service had sufficient number of staff who were appropriately trained experienced and supported to meet people's needs. People who used the service were supported to attend activities and appointment.

Is the service caring?

Each person's needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. The provider had systems in place to ensure that the service provided reflected the needs of people. People's relatives and health and social care professionals were involved and each person had key workers who regularly checked that the care and support people received met their needs.

Is the service responsive?

Staff had a good understanding of the needs of people. We saw that each person using the service was supported to attend various medical appointments. People told us that staff listened to them and responded to their needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service had an experienced registered manager. People who used the service were satisfied with the care and support they received. We noted that the manager had worked with relatives of people, staff, and other professionals to idnetfy and provide appropriate care that met people's needs. We saw that the manager regularly monitored the quality of the service.

People spoke positively about the care provided at the service. A person using the service, we spoke with said, 'I am very happy here."

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had the policies and procedures in place in relation to the protection of people using the service.

We found that people's individual needs were being met. The service was suitably laid out and adequately maintained. Staff were adequately supported by the service to meet people's needs.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. We found that people were cared for and supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

People who used the service told us that they felt safe at the home and were well looked after. However, we found that people who use the service were not always protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider did not have policies and procedures in place in relation to the protection of people's finances.

A person using the service said, 'I like it here, they look after me well. The staff are good and caring.' A relative said, 'she's always been well looked after and we have never had the need to complains about anything. Since she's been there she has actually improved. They are the best.' People spoke positively about the provision of care and staff. However, we found that not all staff had received training to enable them to obtain further skills and qualifications that was relevant to their work.