Archived: Earlmont House

Updated 20 April 2017

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.

This focused inspection was carried out by one inspector on 20 March 2017 and was announced. The location provides a supported living service for younger adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that some of them would be available to talk to us. That is why the provider was given 48 hours’ notice.

This inspection was completed to check whether sufficient improvements to meet legal requirements after our comprehensive inspection 13 July 2016 had been made. We inspected the service against one of the five questions we ask about services: “Is the service effective?”. The focus of the inspection was narrowed down to this domain because the service had failed to meet legal requirements only in relation to this question. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the provider information return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed any statutory notifications that the provider had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we spoke with two people who use the service, two members of staff and one registered manager. We reviewed two care files, four staff files, training records and records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 20 April 2017

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 13 July 2016. We found breaches of Regulation 11 and Regulation 18. The management and staff had limited knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and provider had not ensured staff received appropriate training. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider submitted an action plan to fully comply with the regulations. They assured us they were going to take action to ensure they would meet the legal requirements by 30 November 2016.

We undertook this focused inspection on 20 March 2017 to check whether the provider now met the legal requirements. We found the service had taken action to address our concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Earlmont House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Earlmont House is a service providing personal care for up to seven people with mental health needs who reside in supported living accommodation. At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service.

There were two registered managers 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.

Records showed staff received the training they needed to keep people safe. The manager had taken action to ensure that training was kept up-to-date and future training was planned.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management and received supervision and appraisals, which helped to identify their training and development needs.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff were trained in the principles of the MCA and could describe how people were supported to make decisions. Where people did not have the capacity, decisions were made in their best interests.

People were supported to have a healthy diet dependent on their assessed individual needs. People were offered a choice of foods and were involved in preparing their own meals where possible.

People's health needs were monitored and people were referred to external healthcare professionals if such a need was identified.