Background to this inspection
Updated
29 August 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 27 and 30 July 2018. The inspection was announced and the provider was given 24 hours’ notice that we would be visiting the service. This was because the service provides care to a small number of people who often go out and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection team consisted of one inspector. The first day was spent at the care home speaking with staff, completing observations and looking at records and quality assurance systems. The second day was used to contact staff, professionals and relatives.
When planning our inspection, we looked at the information we held about the service. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is information we require providers to send us annually to give key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make. We also obtained feedback from the local authority and from the commissioners of people’s care and no concerns were raised about the service.
The people living at the home at the time of the inspection had limited verbal communication so we observed interactions between them and staff, spoke with one of their representatives and viewed their care files. We also spoke with the registered provider, four members of staff and two professionals. We looked at a range of records. This included people’s care plans, medicine records, staff records and quality assurance systems that were in place.
Updated
29 August 2018
This inspection was announced and took place on the 27 and 30 July 2018. This service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Arshad Mahmood is registered to provide accommodation for up to four people living with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were three people living at the home.
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. We found that the service promoted these values. There was not a registered manager in post. This was because the registered provider managed the service and there was a small staff team providing care and support to people.
At our last inspection on 12 July 2016 we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’ in all key questions. This was because staff required further training and development in relation to safeguarding, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We also found that quality assurance systems had not been used to identify shortfalls, develop action plans and drive improvement. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in relation to these areas.
People were supported by staff who knew them well and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Individual risks to people were assessed and staff knew how to minimise them. People were protected from risk of harm because staff knew how to spot signs of abuse and how to report concerns both within the organisation and externally from it. People received their medication as prescribed and staff were trained to give medication safely. The provider had a system in place to ensure safe recruitment.
People were supported by staff who had up to date training and the skills required to meet people’s needs. Staff sought consent from people before providing support and people were supported to make their own decisions. People were supported to meet their nutritional needs. People had access to the relevant professionals when required and people and relatives were kept up to date about any changes in people’s needs.
People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew their likes, dislikes, preferences and personal history. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and had goals in place to achieve with the support from staff. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained. People were communicated with in their preferred way. People were supported to meet their religious and cultural needs.
People were supported to engage in meaningful activities, both as a group and individually. People and relatives were informed of the complaints process and relatives we spoke with confirmed they knew how to complain. People and their relatives were involved in the review of their care and care plans and risk assessments were updated to reflect any changes to people’s needs.
There were quality assurance systems in place which had been analysed to identify areas for development and actions had been implemented. People and relatives feedback was sought on a regular basis and people were involved in the development of the service. Staff and relatives we spoke with told us the registered provider was approachable and supportive.