Archived: Amadeus House

Updated 9 May 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We planned this inspection to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

One inspector conducted the inspection over two days.

Service and service type:

Amadeus House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The manager of the service had applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR) to support our inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at information we held about the service including notifications they had made to us about important events. A notification is information about certain changes, events and incidents affecting the service or the people who use it that providers are required to tell us about. We also reviewed all other information sent to us from other stakeholders for example the local authority and members of the public.

We visited the home and spoke with the manager, the acting service manager, three mental health support workers, and two mental health professionals who were visiting people at the time of the inspection. We also spoke to three people using the service and the relative of another person. We looked at records related to the running of the service. These included the care needs assessments and support and risk management plans of three people using the service, the staff files for seven support workers and records the managers kept for monitoring the quality of the service.

After the inspection we spoke with three other mental health professionals and one housing service professional involved with the service.

Updated 9 May 2019

About the service:

Amadeus House is a care home without nursing that at the time of the inspection was providing short-term, therapeutic support and accommodation to 14 men and women experiencing mental health crisis. The service can support up to 17 people. Local health and mental health services refer people to the service for support.

People’s experience of using this service:

People said they felt safe and were supported by staff and managers who had time for them when they needed it, listened to them, and were caring and compassionate.

Staff treated people with respect and promoted people’s independence, dignity and privacy.

People were involved in their support and risk management planning. People’s plans were person-centred, outcome-focused and based on clear assessments of their needs.

The service worked collaboratively with other mental health services to provide effective, timely care and support to people.

Staff received induction, training and supervision and felt supported in their roles.

There was a clear vision for the service, using the ‘recovery’ model of support. Recovery-focused support aims to help people with mental health conditions to engage in an active life, regain hope and retain their independence and achieve a positive sense of self. There was a commitment and focus on providing good care and support. Staff and the management team were clear about their roles in delivering this.

The provider sought feedback from people, relatives and staff and used this to develop the service. Complaints were handled appropriately.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and managers acted when improvements were required. The managers reviewed incidents that had taken place in the service and the lessons learnt from these were used to reduce the risk of the incidents happening again.

Rating at last inspection:

We rated the service good at our last comprehensive inspection. We published our last report on 27 July 2016.

Why we inspected:

This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as

per our re-inspection programme. We may inspect sooner if we receive any concerning information regarding the safety and quality of the care being provided.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.