Archived: 68 Stirling Road

68 Stirling Road provides accommodation and respite care for up to five adults with mental health conditions. People using the service continue to be supported by community mental health teams. People using the service were usually independent with their daily living, but required support with their mental well-being at times. There were five people using the service at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were happy with the service they received and were asked about their opinion of the service. However, systems for monitoring the overall quality of the service were not consistently applied. For example we saw that infection control procedures were not in line with recommended guidance and audits did not always identify where improvements were needed.

People were protected from harm because procedures were in place to reduce the risk of harm to people and staff knew how to support people to keep safe. People were involved in deciding how risks to them were managed and felt they received a safe service.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff that were appropriately recruited and supported to provide care and support to people. This is because the provider had appropriate systems in place to recruit suitable staff. People felt that there were sufficient staff to meet their needs and the registered manager and deputy manager were available to support the staff team.

People received their medicines as prescribed and systems were in place to manage people’s medicines. Procedures were in place for foreseeable emergencies and staff knew the procedures. The provider was in the process of moving the service to more suitable accommodation to ensure a more appropriate environment for people.

People had control over what they ate and drank, with support from staff if necessary. This is because people retained control over their daily living activities. People had access to mental health professionals and were supported to maintain their physical heath.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and people felt all staff were respectful and courteous to them. People were free to pursue their individual social and daily living activities, with family and friends as they wished.

People knew how to raise concerns if they needed to and systems were in place to investigate and respond to any concerns raised. People felt they could talk with any staff member about their concerns and they would be addressed. Information on giving feedback or raising concerns was on display in the hallway of the home and people knew they could use these to raise their concerns if they wished. People said they felt listened to and were confident in the way staff treated them.

At our last inspection 9 June 2014, we identified that the provider was not keeping us informed of incidents that they were required to inform us of. During this inspection we saw that the provider had rectified this and was now complying with the regulations.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

68 Stirling Road provides accommodation and respite care for up to five adults with mental health conditions. People using the service continue to be supported by community mental health teams. There were five people using the service at the time of our inspection.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service people received. However, improvements were needed to ensure a consistently well-led service. Specific training was not provided to ensure staff fully understood people’s needs.

People were protected from harm because procedures were in place to reduce the risk of harm to people and staff knew how to support people to keep safe. People were involved in deciding how risks to them were managed.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff that were appropriately recruited and supported to provide care and support to people.

People received their medicines as prescribed and safe systems were in place to manage people’s medicines. Procedures were in place for foreseeable emergencies and staff knew the procedures. The environment and equipment used for people’s care were safely maintained.

People had control over what they ate and drank, with support from staff if necessary. People had access to mental health professionals and were supported to maintain their physical heath.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected. People were free to pursue their individual social activities, with family and friends as they wished.

Most people knew how to raise concerns if they needed to and systems were in place to investigate and respond to any concerns raised.

As part of this inspection we spoke with the three people who used the service, the manager in charge of the home, and two support workers. We contacted someone from the community mental health services to ask for their views on the quality of the service. At the time of writing this report we had not received any feedback.

We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included, a care plan, daily care records, accident /incident records, complaints records, audits, staff records and training records.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

All of the people spoken with told us that they had no concerns about the support they received. One person told us, 'The people are really nice and they look after me well.'

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and the staff team learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people that currently used the service and all the people spoken with said there were enough staff to support them.

People's needs were assessed and risks associated with providing the service were identified and managed to ensure that people received support in a safe way.

Systems were in place to monitor the safety of the premises to ensure that people lived in a safe home.

All the people spoken with told us that they felt safe using the service. All staff spoken with knew how to ensure that people were safe from harm.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. We were told by the person in charge during our inspection that people using this service would not be subjected to a depravation of liberty, because they did not require continuous supervision. People that stayed at this service would have the capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Is the service effective?

All of the people spoken with told us that they were receiving the support that they needed.

Care plans that we saw were devised with people that used the service, so that support could be provided to meet people's needs.

Staff received the support and training needed to ensure that they offered effective support to people that used the service.

Is the service caring?

Everyone that we spoke with said they thought the staff were caring towards them. One person told us, 'They don't shout and they look after me.'

People were supported to maintain their independence, and received support when needed. One person told us, 'It's a nice home, all the staff are nice and I have a lot of freedom.'

Is the service responsive?

All the people that we spoke with told us that they had no complaints about the care provided. There was a system in place to respond to people's complaints.

The service responds to people who were in need of short term support to maintain their well-being and independence. People that we spoke with told us that they were enabled by the staff to maintain their independence.

Systems were in place to ensure that staff were able to communicate with people whose first language was not English. This ensured that the service was able to respond to people with different linguistic needs.

Is the service well led?

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provision. All the people that we spoke with knew how to raise a complaint should they need to. All the people that we spoke with said they were happy with the standard of support they received from the service.

There was currently no one registered to manage the home and the provider had not kept us informed about the arrangements for managing the home. The provider was also not keeping us informed of significant incidents that affected the welfare of people that used the service.

We found that improvements were needed to meet the requirements of the law to ensure that the service was well led.

The people we spoke with were satisfied with the service they received at the home. One person told us, 'I love it here, it's really nice.' Another person described the service as, 'Relatively okay.'

Our previous inspection at this service in June 2012 highlighted areas of concern across a number of outcomes and the service did not have a manager.

During this visit we found that improvements had been made. People received the care and support they needed from staff who also had support and training to do their job. The premises were presently undergoing refurbishment and provided suitable accommodation for people who used the service.

We did however still have some concerns in relation to the quality monitoring of the service. The systems in place were not sufficiently robust to identify where improvements to the service were needed.

Since our previous inspection a manager has been appointed to the home but is not currently registered with the Care Quality Commission. The provider and manager are aware of the need for this person to formally apply to become a registered manager in accordance with the relevant legislation.