Archived: Thorley

There were 24 individual apartments within the building (Parkside). There was an office space and staff provided people with a range of services including personal care, medicines management and cleaning services. At this inspection thirteen people received care and support.

At our previous inspection in June 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People felt safe using the service. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse and concerns had been reported appropriately to the local authority safeguarding team for review. People had individual risks to their health, safety and wellbeing assessed and plans were in place to mitigate these risks. People were supported by sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff to meet their needs and had access to staff support 24 hours a day.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff understood their responsibilities in the event of an emergency such as a fire and learning from any accidents and incidents were discussed in team meetings together with sharing examples of good practice. Staff received training to give them the skills and knowledge to maintain good infection control standards.

People received effective care. People were supported by staff who had received training and supervision for their role. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff helped people with making their breakfast and some snacks however, people were responsible for making their own arrangements for mealtimes. Staff contacted health professionals such as GPs on behalf of people if needed. The service worked closely with external professionals such as occupational therapists where possible to help ensure people received the right support.

People told us they were treated with dignity, respect and kindness. People were supported to make choices, influence decision making and to be as independent as possible. People were involved in planning their care and confidential information such as care plans was stored securely to promote people’s privacy and dignity.

Care plans provided detail about people’s care needs and specific health needs so that staff could recognise if a person’s health condition deteriorated and further support was needed. The service was responsive to people’s changing needs and daily records were completed to indicate the care and support that had been provided. People arranged their own activities within the complex and were regularly asked for their views about how the service was performing and what they felt about their care and support. People knew how to make a complaint if needed and this information was available to them in their care plans.

People said the service was well managed. Staff enjoyed working at the service and said they felt supported in their role. Quality assurance audits were effective in identifying shortfalls and bringing about improvements. People who used the service confirmed they were continually asked if they were satisfied with the care and support provided. The registered manager kept themselves up to date with changes in practice and legislation and informed the CQC of significant events in a timely way which meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Thorley is a supported living service that supports older people to live as independently as possible in a complex of 24 individual flats. The service provides support with personal care, shopping, domestic tasks and social activities tailored to each individual’s level of need. On the day of this inspection there were twenty people receiving varied degrees of support with their personal care.

The service had a registered manager at the time of the inspection however, they were absent from the service on a period of secondment elsewhere within the provider’s organisation. In the registered manager’s absence the service was being managed by an experienced person who had been recently recruited to work with Metropolitan Housing Trust and was in the process of submitting their application to register with the Care Quality Commission.

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 told us they felt safe in the service. Staff understood their responsibilities and were confidently able to describe what constituted abuse and how they would report any concerns they had.

People had health care and support plans in place to help ensure that staff knew how they liked their needs to be met. Risks to people’s safety and welfare had been identified and care had been planned to enable people to live as safely and independently as possible. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s care and support needs. People’s medicines were managed safely. There were clear arrangements in place in the event of emergencies.

People told us they had experienced a difficult time recently when permanent staffing levels had dipped and they had received care and support from agency staff members who did not know their care and support needs very well. However, the management team, the staff team and people who used the service told us that this had stabilised now with new staff members coming on board. Some agency staff were still employed to provide support whilst the provider’s recruitment processes were completed but these were regular staff who had come to know people’s needs and preferences over a period of time.

The systems in place to recruit staff were robust to help ensure that the right people were recruited to provide people’s care and support. Staff received on-going training to help ensure that they kept up to date with good practice and refresh their skills and knowledge. Consent to care and treatment was understood by the staff team and people were supported in line with the legislation. Information was available in communal areas about advocacy services should people feel they needed additional support with decision making.

Support was provided to promote healthy eating and access to health care services. Staff were caring and promoted people’s independence as much as possible.

The culture of the service was open and staff were motivated and clear about the manager and provider’s objectives. The provider had arrangements to receive feedback from people who used the service and to drive forward improvement including regular monitoring by representatives of the provider.