Archived: Karelia Court

Updated 8 March 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.

The inspection took place on the 4 and 7 of December 2015 and was unannounced, which meant the registered provider did not know we would be visiting the service. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

We looked at notifications sent to us by the registered provider, which gave us information about how incidents and accidents were managed.

Prior to the inspection we spoke to the local safeguarding team, the local authority contracts and commissioning team about their views of the service. There were no concerns expressed by these agencies.

Before the inspection, the registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIR was received in a timely way and was completed fully. We looked at notifications sent in to us by the registered provider, which gave us information about how incidents and accidents were managed

During the inspection we observed how staff interacted with people who used the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who were unable to speak with us. We spoke with The relatives of two people who used the service, the registered manager, the deputy manager a care leader, an activity coordinator and two support staff.

We looked at the care records for three people who used the service and other important documentation relating to people who used the service such as 3 medication administration records (MARs). We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, best interest meetings were held in order to make important decisions on their behalf.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included four staff recruitment files, the training record, the staff rota, minutes of meetings with staff, quality assurance audits, complaints management and maintenance of equipment records.

Updated 8 March 2016

Karelia Court is located in the West of Hull close to local shops and amenities, with easy access to public transport and community facilities.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. There were six people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

Accommodation is provided in a modern two storey building with eight single bedrooms, two lounges, a dining room with accessible kitchenette, central kitchen and two offices. Bathrooms are shared. The service has a garden and some designated off street parking to the front of the building.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. There was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since December 2010.

We undertook this unannounced inspection took place on 4 and 7 December 2015. At the last inspection on 15 May 2014, the registered provider was compliant with all of the outcomes we assessed.

We found staff were recruited safely and there was sufficient staff to support people. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. They knew what to do if they had concerns. There were policies and procedures available to guide them.

We found staff had a caring and professional approach and found ways to promote people’s independence, privacy and dignity. Staff provided information to people and included them in decisions about their support and care.

People who used the service had assessments of their needs undertaken which identified any potential risks to their safety. Staff had read the risk assessments and were aware of their responsibilities and the steps to take to minimise risk.

We found people’s health and nutritional needs were met and they accessed professional advice and treatment from community services when required. People who used the service received care in a person centred way with care plans describing their preferences for care and staff followed this guidance.

Staff had received training in legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Health Act 1983. They were aware of the need to gain consent when delivering care and support and what to do if people lacked capacity to agree to it. When people were assessed by staff as not having the capacity to make their own decisions, meetings were held with relevant others to discuss options and make decisions in the person’s best interest.

We found staff supported people with activities of daily living including access to community facilities and keeping in touch in family and friends.

Staff had access to induction, training, supervision and appraisal which supported them to feel skilled and confident when providing care to people. This included training considered essential by the registered provider and also specific training to meet the needs of people they supported.

There was a complaints process and information provided to people who used the service and staff in how to raise concerns directly with senior managers.

Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Training records showed staff had received training in the safe handling and administration of medicines.

People who used the service were seen to engage in a number of activities both within the service and the local community. They were encouraged to pursue hobbies, social interests and to go on holiday. Staff also supported people to maintain relationships with their families and friends.

Karelia Court is located in the West of Hull close to local shops and amenities, with easy access to public transport and community facilities.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. There were six people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

Accommodation is provided in a modern two storey building with eight single bedrooms, two lounges, a dining room with accessible kitchenette, central kitchen and two offices. Bathrooms are shared. The service has a garden and some designated off street parking to the front of the building.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. There was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since December 2010.

We undertook this unannounced inspection took place on 4 and 7 December 2015. At the last inspection on 15 May 2014, the registered provider was compliant with all of the outcomes we assessed.

The people who used the service had complex needs and were not all able to tell us fully their experiences. We used a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to help us understand the experiences of the people who used the service. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand people who were unable to speak with us. We observed people being treated with dignity and respect and enjoying the interaction with staff. Staff knew how to communicate with people and involve them in how they were supported and cared for.

We found staff were recruited safely and there was sufficient staff to support people. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. They knew what to do if they had concerns. There were policies and procedures available to guide them.

We found staff had a caring and professional approach and found ways to promote people’s independence, privacy and dignity. Staff provided information to people and included them in decisions about their support and care.

People who used the service had assessments of their needs undertaken which identified any potential risks to their safety. Staff had read the risk assessments and were aware of their responsibilities and the steps to take to minimise risk.

We found people’s health and nutritional needs were met and they accessed professional advice and treatment from community services when required. People who used the service received care in a person centred way with care plans describing their preferences for care and staff followed this guidance.

Staff had received training in legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Health Act 1983. They were aware of the need to gain consent when delivering care and support and what to do if people lacked capacity to agree to it. When people were assessed by staff as not having the capacity to make their own decisions, meetings were held with relevant others to discuss options and make decisions in the person’s best interest.

We found staff supported people with activities of daily living including access to community facilities and keeping in touch in family and friends.

Staff had access to induction, training, supervision and appraisal which supported them to feel skilled and confident when providing care to people. This included training considered essential by the registered provider and also specific training to meet the needs of people they supported.

There was a complaints process and information provided to people who used the service and staff in how to raise concerns directly with senior managers.

Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Training records showed staff had received training in the safe handling and administration of medicines.

People who used the service were seen to engage in a number of activities both within the service and the local community. They were encouraged to pursue hobbies, social interests and to go on holiday. Staff also supported people to maintain relationships with their families and friends.