Archived: Rose Cottage

On that occasion we found that people had not been properly protected from the risk of harm. This was because procedures under the law to protect people's rights from being restricted had not been followed.

On this occasion we found that the home had taken action which ensured there were proper arrangements in place to protect people from harm.

At the time of this inspection there were four people who lived at the home, three men and one woman and their ages were from 22 years to 30 years. They had all lived at the home for different lengths of time ranging from three to six years. The manager told us plans were well underway for all of them to move out of Rose Cottage into alternative living arrangements. This was because local authorities had implemented a policy of people returning to live in the the areas that were responsible for funding the support they received. Consequently three people were to return to live in a London Borough. The fourth person was to move into specialist accommodation locally that was suitable for one person. The manager said three people would leave the home by or around 24 May 2014.

We met with three of the people who lived at the home. We also spoke with the home's manager and looked at relevant records and documents.

We considered our inspection findings to answer a question we always ask. Is the service safe?

The home's staff had all received training about physical intervention. The provider had a policy and procedures in place about this matter. The home's staff therefore had information readily available to them about what they were required to do in situations when they could be harmed. The policy stated if staff were confronted by, ' an aggressive ' violent individual whose actions pose a risk to safety", physical intervention was a last resort. This meant people would be protected as far as was reasonably possible because staff had received appropriate training and advice how about to manage difficult situations.

We found the home's manager was aware a recent Supreme Court decision had changed the definition of what constituted a Deprivation of Liberty. We saw the provider had issued new advice for staff to follow based on the decision which meant people's rights would be protected.

We spoke with two people who used the service and observed care given to two other people. One person told us, "the staff are nice and helpful and help me choose what I want to do every day." Another person told us, "I chose to have hot dogs for lunch today and helped cook it." This showed people were supported to make every day choices.

We saw people engaged in tasks and preparing to go out on a wide range of activities. Staff spoke to people respectfully and asked them for their consent before assisting them with activities. We saw staff offering people choices around the mealtime and what they wanted to do in the afternoon.

One person told us, "I feel safe here and if I am not happy and feel scared I can talk to my keyworker." We spoke with two staff who demonstrated awareness of abuse and the safeguarding policy used by the provider. One member of staff said, "If I saw abuse happening I would get the person to safety and inform the senior member of staff on duty or phone the on call manager." We found guidelines in place for the management of one person's challenging behaviours. These identified the use of a physical intervention which had not been authorised by a responsible professional. We found the service to be non compliant, as this constituted unlawful control or restraint.

We spoke with the nominated individual and a senior support worker about recruitment checks they carried out. They told us all staff were screened throughout the application process and references and checks from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) were requested when staff were appointed. A member of staff told us, "I had to have all of my employment checks done before I could start working here."

We found the provider carried out regular audit checks on the quality of the service they provided. These had been completed within the last month and a number of actions identified to improve aspects of the service.

Care plans provided clear details about the care and support each person needed which included individual choices of each person and the support they needed to ensure they remained healthy.

There was an effective process for monitoring the quality of the service provided at Rose Cottage. This included regular auditing and seeking the views of people who used the service and visitors to the home. Plans were developed and followed to improve the service provided at the home.