SENSE - 35 Hawthorn Road

People’s experience of using this service: Safe care and treatment was not always provided. Safe medication processes were not in place with regards to the management of some aspects of people’s medicines. There was also no evidence that any checks on people’s medication were undertaken to ensure people’s medicines had been administered correctly. We also found that the management of the service overall was not consistent, this was also commented on by relatives and staff.

We observed support being delivered within the home and saw that people were comfortable in the presence of staff. This indicated that positive relationships had developed between people receiving support and care staff

The registered provider had a complaints policy in place and people were given information on how to make a complaint about the service should they wish to do so. Safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures were also in place for staff to follow. Staff spoken with were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and how to raise any concerns they had.

Staff were recruited safely and received regular supervision and the correct level of training to do their job.

People received the support they needed to eat and drink and maintain a healthy and balanced diet.

Consent to care and treatment were sought in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us staff always asked for their consent before providing support. People’s chosen advocates was identified in their care plans should people need support to make a decision about their care.

Care plans and risk assessments reflected people's needs, and held person-centred information. Care files had been reviewed regularly and people were involved in these reviews.

People who lived in the home had multiple sensory disabilities, the provider had strategies in place to ensure communication was effective and that people were given the opportunity to make their own choices about their lives.

Rating at last inspection: The service was last inspected 28 January 2016. At the last inspection this service was rated as Good. At this inspection it was rated Requires Improvement

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

We observed that staff supported people safely and in a caring way and that support was given in the way described in the individual's care plan and / or risk assessment. This ensured that the care given met the person's needs and was effective. Staff showed knowledge about people's preferences, care needs and risks to them. Staff showed they were able to respond appropriately when needed.

People were given nutritious food and supported to have appropriate drinks.

There were sufficient staff on duty to ensure that people had access to activities and staff could work with people individually at times. Staff we spoke with confirmed that they had appropriate training and support to meet the needs of the people they were caring for.

We had received no complaints about the home in the last year.

Risks to people's health and wellbeing were identified and audited with plans made to minimise risks to people using the service.

Care staff supported people in a sensitive way using differing methods of communication to ensure that people understood what was going to happen. People were supported to experience a range of activities and to undertake some day to day tasks. People appeared well cared for having their personal care needs met in an environment that supported them.

Two people told us they were contacted should care staff be concerned about their relative. They told us the home was: "Fabulous," and "Brilliant."

Systems were in place to ensure that risks to people's safety and well being had been identified and risks minimised. Permanent care staff were generally appropriately trained and supported. However, the responsibility for bank staff needed to more explicit to ensure that they received training and supervision.