Archived: Corbett House

The provider is registered to accommodate and deliver personal care to a maximum of 11 adults who lived with a mental health condition and/or associated needs. At the time of our inspection 10 people lived at the home.

There was no registered manager as they had resigned a short time before our inspection. It is a legal requirement that a manager is registered with us. 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 felt safe. Risks to people had been assessed appropriately and were monitored. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

There was sufficient staff on duty to meet the care and support needs of people. The provider ensured that staff were recruited safely.

Staff felt that they had received adequate training to equip them with the skills and knowledge they needed to provide safe and appropriate support to the people who lived at the home.

People received their medicines as they had been prescribed and records were maintained when medicines were administered by appropriately trained staff.

Staff understood the circumstances when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were to be followed to prevent any unlawful restrictions.

People felt it was a good place and that they were happy there. People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as possible.

People felt that the staff were helpful and kind. They confirmed that were respectful, polite and helpful.

Complaints systems were available for people to use. People felt that they could state their concerns or dissatisfaction and issues would be looked into.

People felt that the quality of service was good. There was no manager registered with us the home was being led by a deputy manager until a replacement could be appointed. However, the deputy manager was not being given protected time to attend to managerial tasks. The deputy manager knew when they needed to send us notifications about incidents that occurred. Audits were undertaken to determine if changes or improvements were needed.

We carried out this inspection so that we could answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

From our previous inspection significant action had been taken to improve the service to people.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions we had with three people who lived at the home, two members of staff who supported people and the manager. We looked at three people's care records.

This report states that the registered manager is Christine Davies who was not managing regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still identified as a registered manager on our register at the time.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found that systems were in place to support learning from events like accidents, incidents and complaints. Staff we spoke with were able to explain the complaints process and what they would do if an incident took place. One person said, "I would speak to the manager or staff if I was unhappy".

People who lived at the home told us that they felt safe. We found that there were systems in place to keep people safe. We found where people administered their own medicines, there was a risk assessment in place to keep people safe. Where people were administered medicines on an 'as required' basis we found that the provider had a protocol in place to direct staff appropriately.

No applications for the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been submitted by the provider. Staff we spoke with were able to explain the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager was able to explain the process that would be followed where a DoLS application was required in someone's best interest. Training was available to staff. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.

Overall we found that the provider had adequate processes and systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in relation to keeping people safe.

Is the service effective?

Some people told us that staff were supportive in helping them develop the skills they needed to eventually live independently in the community. One person said, "Staff support me to cook my own meals".

Records showed that assessments and care plans were in place to identify people's needs and how staff should support people. We observed staff constantly checking people who suffered with depression and sitting down in the communal area and talking with people. Staff were proactive in showing people their full attention when needed, and being able to notice when people needed some reassurance.

People's risks were identified to ensure their safety and we found that staff had a good knowledge of people's support needs.

People were able to access health care when needed. Records showed that visits from health professionals were recorded appropriately.

Overall we found that the provider had adequate processes and systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring that the service was effective.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff sitting and talking to people in a caring manner. People we spoke with told us staff supported them whenever they needed support. Some people's needs were minimal in comparison to other people who needed greater support with personal care.

People were supported to live their lives as independently as possible. Where people had the skills they were supported to move back into the community to live independently. One person said, "I am being supported so I can move out of the home".

Overall the provider had adequate systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in ensuring the service was caring.

Is the service responsive?

We found from our previous inspection that the provider had improvements to make in order to meet the regulations. We found that at this inspection the provider had made the improvement to meet the regulations.

The provider had a system in place so people could share any comments they had about the service. People told us they were able to share their views.

Overall the provider had adequate systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in ensuring the service was responsive to people's needs.

Is the service well-led?

People we spoke with knew how to raise any concerns they had about the service. The provider had a complaints process on display so people would know how to raise concerns.

The provider carried out audits to ensure the service people received was safe. Staff told us the provider visited the home regularly and sat and talked with people and staff to ensure the service people received was what they wanted.

Overall the provider had adequate systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in ensuring the service was well-led.

All of the people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and support provided. One person said, 'The staff encourage me to be independent and I feel respected.' Another person told us, 'The staff understand and respect me.'

We found that people's needs were assessed, and care plans were developed in consultation with people or their representatives. Staff spoken with were able to tell us about people's needs. This ensured they received support in a way they preferred.

People received their medication as required. However we found that improvements were required with the medication records.

Staff we spoke with told us they were supported by the manager, and had completed an induction. However we found staff were not up to date with relevant training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.

We found that systems were in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.

We found that people's care records were not up to date, detailed and fit for purpose.

All of the people spoken with told us they liked living at the home. One person said, 'it is nice here, there is a relaxed atmosphere, and I feel comfortable here.' Another person told us, 'we choose how we spend our day, and the staff support us when we need them to.'

All of the people spoken with told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity and that they were given choices about their care, how they spent their day, and about what food they wanted to eat. We saw positive interactions between staff and people that lived at the home.

We saw that people's needs were assessed, and support plans were developed in consultation with people. Staff spoken to were able to tell us about people's needs, this ensures they receive support is a way they prefer.

People said they felt safe living at the home, and staff knew how to safeguard the people living there. Recruitment processes ensured staff employed there were suitable to work with the people living there to ensure they were safe.

All of the people spoken to told us they knew how to raise any concerns, and systems were in place to address these. People have regular meetings which enable them to raise any issues about the service and suggest improvements about the way the service is delivered.