Archived: 11 Cullum Road

Updated 20 May 2015

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 15 January 2015 and was announced.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications and enquiries relating to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us.

The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

During our inspection, we reviewed six care plans, looked at policies and audits regarding medication and quality assurance.

We spoke with nine people who used the service, two relatives, the area manager, the registered manager and three members of care staff and observed the staff handover between shifts.

Updated 20 May 2015

This was an announced inspection carried out on the 15 January 2015. The service provides personal care to people living in sheltered accommodation and there was a registered manager in place. 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.

At the last inspection on 19 September 2014. We found that people were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We also found that the provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received or to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the home. We issued the provider with a warning and required them to take action to improve these elements of the service. At this inspection we saw that improvement had been made to meet the relevant requirements.

Medication was stored securely and since our last inspection significant action has been taken to put systems in place to audit medication, detect errors and take action promptly should any errors arise.

The staff had received training in the safeguarding of people, promoting dignity and respect and in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Before moving to the service people took part in an assessment of their needs from which a care plan was written and reviewed regularly. The care plan determined how many visits the person required each day and hence the number of staff required to be on duty.

Staff had worked with people to support them to access and be visited by healthcare professionals when they had been unwell and also to arrange on-going appointments to maintain their well-being when long standing illnesses had been diagnosed.

Staff had supported people to maintain and improve their independence after periods of illness. There were regular activities arranged for people and support with hobbies. Many of the communal walls had been decorated with drawings and paintings by the people who lived at the home.

There were systems in place for replying to people’s concerns. People told us that they were confident in the manager and senior staff who they saw regularly.