Background to this inspection
Updated
21 October 2017
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 an updated rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 12 September 2017 and was unannounced.
The inspection was carried out by one Adult Social Care Inspector.
Prior to our inspection we reviewed all the information available to us. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form completed by the manager to evidence how they are meeting the regulations and how they intend to improve the service. We also looked at any notifications and complaints about the service. Notifications are information about specific events the service is required to tell us by law.
As part of our inspection, we spoke with four people living at the home and reviewed the records of two people. We spoke with two support staff as well as the registered manager. We reviewed other records relating to the running of the service such as medicines records, staff records and quality assurance information.
Updated
21 October 2017
The inspection took place on 12 September 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in July 2015 the service was rated Good with no breaches of regulation found. The service provides care and accommodation for up to six people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service. One person was in hospital and so unable to speak with us.
There was a registered manager at the home. 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.
People told us they felt safe and got on well with staff. We observed positive relationships between people in the home and staff. Staff spoke positively about people and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff understood the principles of safeguarding adults and this protected people from the risk of abuse.
We noted one area in the home that was damaged by a significant damp issue. This had been noted and reported by the registered manager and action had been taken to address it.
The service was effective. People in the home had capacity to make decisions for themselves, however staff understood the principles of the MCA and how they applied to their work. Nobody in the home was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation.
Staff were well trained and supported in their roles. New staff to the organisation undertook the Care Certificate. This is a nationally recognised qualification that provides staff with the necessary skills to undertake a role in the care sector. Staff were supervised regularly to monitor their performance and development needs.
People’s independence was encouraged and promoted. The registered manager had completed a project looking at how people’s independence could be supported with the use of assistive technology. This included for example looking at ways in which technology could be employed to assist a person to be independent with their medicines.
The home was responsive to people’s needs. People had clear and person centred support plans in place. These were reviewed and updated regularly with the input of the person concerned. If a person’s needs changed this was identified and plans put in place to address the issue. People felt able to raise concerns and issues if they needed to. It was clear the registered manager took note of the concern and whether any improvements could be made for people in the home. House meetings took place on a three monthly basis to encourage people to give their views and opinions about the running of the home.
The home was well led. Staff were all positive about working for the organisation and told us communication was good within the team. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.