Archived: Community Options Limited - 78 Croydon Road

Updated 26 October 2016

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 unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 08 September 2016. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we looked at the information we held about the service including information from notifications they had sent us. We also asked the local authority commissioning the service and the safeguarding team for their views of the service.

The service is registered to provide personal care for up to seven people living in the community recovering from mental health, drug or alcohol problems. On the day of the inspection there were seven people using the service. We spent time observing the care and support being delivered. We spoke with three people using the service, two members of staff, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We reviewed records, including the care records of the four people using the service, one relative, recruitment files and training records for four members of staff. We also looked at records related to the management of the service such quality audits, accident and incident records and policies and procedures.

Updated 26 October 2016

We carried out an announced focussed inspection on 19 April 2016 at which we found a breach of legal requirements because a Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) product was not stored securely when not in use. Detailed records of one to one conversations with keyworkers were not maintained to support staff in recognising risks to people. Reports of Care Program Approach (CPA) review meetings were not always maintained on people's care files. The provider wrote to us following the inspection and told us the action they would take to address the breach by 29 June 2016.

We carried out this unannounced comprehensive inspection on 08 September 2016; we checked that the requirements of the regulations had been met in response to the breaches we identified on 19 April 2016 inspection. You can read the report from our last inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for ‘Community Options – 78 Croydon Road’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Community Options Limited - 78 Croydon Road provides support for up to seven people living in the community recovering from mental health, drug or alcohol problems. On the day of our inspection there were seven people using the service.

At this inspection we found that the provider had taken action so that all COSHH products were stored securely when not in use. The provider had also ensured that all one to one sessions with keyworkers were documented and CPA review meeting minutes were maintained on people’s care files.

We found that resident surveys to obtain feedback on the service were carried out. However, we found that improvement was needed as following analysis action plans were not in place to drive necessary improvements.

The service had a 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.

Systems were in place to monitor and evaluate the quality and safety of the service. The provider took into account the views of people using the service and staff but improvement was needed as following analysis of feedback action plans were not in place to make any necessary improvements.

Safeguarding adult's procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work and there were enough staff on duty and deployed throughout the home to meet people's care and support needs.

Medicines had been managed appropriately. Accidents and incidents were logged and followed up in a timely manner.

Risks to people using the service were assessed and risk assessments and care plans provided clear information and guidance for staff.

Staff received adequate training and support to carry out their roles. Staff had received appropriate support through formal supervisions and appraisals.

Staff and the manager demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and acted according to this legislation. Staff asked people for their consent before they provided care.

People using the service, their care managers and appropriate healthcare professionals had been involved in the care planning process. People's support and care needs were identified, documented and reviewed on a regular basis.

People were supported to have a balanced diet and people had access to health care professionals when they needed them.

Staff delivered care and support with compassion and consideration. People using the services' privacy, dignity and confidentiality was respected and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

Care plans were accurate and people's preferences were correctly documented. People participated in a variety of activities both in and out of the service. People knew about the complaints procedure and said they believed their complaints would be investigated and action taken if necessary.

Regular residents meetings were held where people were able to talk to the manager and staff about the home and the things that were important to them. People and their relatives knew about the home's complaints procedure and said they believed their complaints would be investigated and action taken if necessary.

Regular staff meeting took place and staff said there was a good atmosphere and open culture in the service and that both the registered manager and the deputy manager were supportive.