Archived: 47 Regents Park

Updated 26 May 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.

This inspection took place on 14 and 22 April 2016 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one social care inspector. On the first day we visited the provider’s head office at 51 Regents Park where records relating to the management of the three care homes owned by the same provider were held. These included staff recruitment, training records and quality monitoring records. .

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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 looked at the information in the PIR and also looked at other information we held about the service before the inspection visit.

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager and three staff. We observed care given to three people living in the home. After the inspection we contacted six health and social care professionals. Two relatives also contacted us. We looked at the care records of three people living in the home. We also looked at records relevant to the running of the service including medication records.

Updated 26 May 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 14 and 22 April 2016. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to four adults with learning disabilities. The accommodation is arranged with three bedrooms, lounge dining room, kitchen and bathroom in the main house and a self-contained flat in the basement for one person. On the day of this inspection there were four people living there.

The service was last inspected on 11 May and 2 June 2015. At that inspection we found the service not safe, effective, responsive or well-led. The overall rating was ‘requires improvement’. At this inspection we found all breaches of compliance had been addressed. The management of the service had improved and the service was fully compliant with the Regulations.

There was a registered manager 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.

The people living at 47 Regents Park had limited verbal communication skills and were unable to answer questions about the service. Therefore we relied on our observations of their interaction with three care workers during our visit. People were relaxed and smiling and appeared comfortable in all interactions. Two relatives told us they were entirely satisfied with the care people received and felt people were safe. Comments included “I have always been very pleased with the care she has received” and “There is support for the whole family. If I have a problem I can call someone and I am confident it will get sorted.”

The provider had introduced new monitoring systems since the last inspection to ensure the home ran smoothly and to identify where improvements were needed. We saw many examples of improvements to the service, such as care plans, and staff training. We also found some areas that needed to be improved, such as the quality monitoring process and staff recruitment checks. The provider and registered manager took prompt action to address these when during the inspection as soon as the issues were brought to their attention. The quality monitoring systems needed further adjustment to ensure the provider is pro-active in identifying and addressing all issues promptly.

People who used the service, staff, relatives and professionals told us the service was well-managed. Comments included “In my experience the home is well run, and I believe the staff provide an excellent and caring service.”

On the whole, safe procedures had been followed when recruiting new staff. Checks and references had been carried out by the provider before new staff began working with people. The manager and provider gave assurances that where checks highlighted the possibility that applicants may not be entirely suitable, they took a range of actions to monitor and support new staff. However, these actions were not evidenced by clear risk assessments.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs fully. In the last year the range of training for staff had increased significantly. Staff had received training on topics relevant to the needs of the people living there, including autism, epilepsy and sign language. The increased level of skills had resulted in positive benefits for people living in the home. For example, people who used sign language were able to communicate more easily with staff. Staff told us they were well supported and supervised.

Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Staff showed caring and understanding of each person’s individual needs. People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS provides a process by which a person can be deprived of their liberty when they do not have the capacity to make certain decisions and there is no other way to look after the person safely. Applications had been submitted for people living in the home and were waiting for assessment. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent before carrying out care tasks. We saw staff offering choices and seeking consent before carrying out any tasks for each person.

People had been involved and consulted in drawing up and agreeing a plan of their support needs. Their care plans were comprehensive, well laid out and easy to read. The care plans explained each person’s daily routines and how they wanted staff to support them. The plans were regularly reviewed and updated. The care plans and daily notes provided evidence to show that people were supported to maintain good health.

On weekdays people attended a day centre where they participated in a variety of social activities including cooking, gardening, arts and crafts and animal care. They also went out on shopping trips and outings.

The home was well maintained, clean, warm and comfortable.