Archived: Mr & Mrs Dawson Smith - 79 Silvester Road

The inspection took place on 28 and 29 October 2014 and was unannounced.

The home provides care and accommodation for up to seven people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the home. Each person had their own bedroom. There was a living room, dining room, kitchen and bathrooms which people had full access to. As well as the two owners the home had five staff. One of the providers is also the registered manager. 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.

At our last inspection on 3 October 2013 we found the service was in breach of a regulation as adequate checks were not carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work with people. At this inspection we found this had been addressed and that staff recruitment procedures now ensured staff were suitable to work with people.

At this inspection medicines procedures were not safe as the registered manager ‘predispensed’ medicines from the pharmacist’s containers each morning into pots for the medicines to be given at a later time that day. This is not safe as it increases the risk of medicines errors.

People told us they felt safe at the service and that staff listened to what they said. Staff were aware of safeguarding adults procedures and their responsibilities to report any concerns they had.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people‘s needs and staff were trained so they provided effective care.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager did not need to make any referrals to the local authority regarding the need for a DoLS authorisation as the people at the home had capacity to consent to their care.

People were involved in choosing and preparing food as well as being supported to have a healthy and nutritious diet.

Relatives told us arrangements were made for people to have health checks and treatment where this was needed, which was also recorded in people’s records.

People’s needs and preferences were central to how the registered manager and staff ran the home. We observed a ‘house meeting’ where a staff member supported people to make decisions about their daily lives such as meals and activities. People were also supported to raise any concerns or complaints they had. The staff member had a good knowledge of each person’s needs and allowed people time to express their views. We considered the ‘house meeting’ as a very positive example of how staff listened and empowered people to make decisions about their lives and how the home was run. People were also involved in the staff recruitment procedures and were able to give their views on job applicants.

Each person’s needs had been assessed and there were care plans so that staff had guidance to provide safe and effective care to people. Care plans were individualised to reflect each person’s needs and their preferences. People told us they were consulted about their care and people had signed to agree to their care plan.

People attended a range of activities such as work schemes, day services, shopping and holidays of their choice. People were supported to safely maintain and develop their independence as any risks were assessed with guidelines for staff to support people. People told us how they enjoyed taking part in domestic tasks in the home such as cleaning and cooking.

People’s needs were reviewed and amendments made to care provision. This included reviews of incidents which had occurred, and, where needed the provision of additional training for staff so people were adequately supported.

There was a complaints procedure which people and relatives said they knew how to use if they had a concern.

The service was a family run home where staff and people had frequent communication about how the home was organised. The culture of the home was focussed on involving people in decision making in the home.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

not safe as the registered manager ‘predispensed’ medicines from the pharmacist’s containers each morning into pots for the medicines to be given at a later time that day. This is not safe as it increases the risk of medicines errors.

People told us they felt safe at the service and that staff listened to what they said. Staff were aware of safeguarding adults procedures and their responsibilities to report any concerns they had.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people‘s needs and staff were trained so they provided effective care.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager did not need to make any referrals to the local authority regarding the need for a DoLS authorisation as the people at the home had capacity to consent to their care.

People were involved in choosing and preparing food as well as being supported to have a healthy and nutritious diet.

Relatives told us arrangements were made for people to have health checks and treatment where this was needed, which was also recorded in people’s records.

People’s needs and preferences were central to how the registered manager and staff ran the home. We observed a ‘house meeting’ where a staff member supported people to make decisions about their daily lives such as meals and activities. People were also supported to raise any concerns or complaints they had. The staff member had a good knowledge of each person’s needs and allowed people time to express their views. We considered the ‘house meeting’ as a very positive example of how staff listened and empowered people to make decisions about their lives and how the home was run. People were also involved in the staff recruitment procedures and were able to give their views on job applicants.

Each person’s needs had been assessed and there were care plans so that staff had guidance to provide safe and effective care to people. Care plans were individualised to reflect each person’s needs and their preferences. People told us they were consulted about their care and people had signed to agree to their care plan.

People attended a range of activities such as work schemes, day services, shopping and holidays of their choice. People were supported to safely maintain and develop their independence as any risks were assessed with guidelines for staff to support people. People told us how they enjoyed taking part in domestic tasks in the home such as cleaning and cooking.

People’s needs were reviewed and amendments made to care provision. This included reviews of incidents which had occurred, and, where needed the provision of additional training for staff so people were adequately supported.

There was a complaints procedure which people and relatives said they knew how to use if they had a concern.

The service was a family run home where staff and people had frequent communication about how the home was organised. The culture of the home was focussed on involving people in decision making in the home.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.