Archived: Amethyst House

Updated 7 August 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.

We carried out this inspection between 27, 28 April 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors.

We spoke with three care staff, the registered manager and the area manager. We asked people for their views and experiences of the service and the staff who supported them.

The inspectors visited the service to look at records around how people were cared for and how the service was managed.

We looked at the care records for six people and also looked at records that related to how the service was managed.

Before the inspection the registered manager of the service had 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.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the information in the PIR. We also spoke to the Local Authority.

Updated 7 August 2015

We inspected Amethyst House on 27 and 28 April 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

When we visited the home in August 2014 we found it was in breach of regulations ; Care and welfare of people who use services, Supporting workers, Complaints. When we inspected the service in December 2014 to follow up, we found the service had addressed some of the issues. However, the service was in breach of regulations ; Care and welfare of people who use services, Assessing and monitoring the quality of service and Records.

We found that the provider had continued the programme of improvement and changes had been implemented which had a positive impact on those people who used the service.

Amethyst House provides personal and nursing care and is registered for 39 people. On the day of the inspection 23 people were receiving care services from the provider. The home had a manager who was new in post and undergoing registration. 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 this inspection we found that people who used this service were safe. The care staff knew how to identify if a person may be at risk of harm and the action to take if they had concerns about a person’s safety.

The care staff knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People who used the service, and those who were important to them, were included in planning and agreeing to the care provided.

The decisions people made were respected. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives. People received care from a team of staff who they knew and who knew them. The registered manager had procedures for informing people which staff would be carrying out each visit. This meant people knew who would be coming to their homes.

People were treated with kindness and respect. One person who used the service told us, “It’s smashing, I have everything I need.”

The registered manager used safe recruitment systems to ensure that new staff were only employed if they were suitable to work in people’s homes. The staff employed by the service were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. They told us they would be confident reporting any concerns to a senior person in the service or to the local authority or CQC.

There were sufficient staff, with appropriate experience, training and skills to meet people’s needs. The service was well managed and took appropriate action if expected standards were not met. This ensured people received a safe service that promoted their rights and independence.

Staff were well supported through a system of induction, training, supervision, appraisal and professional development. There was a positive culture within the service which was demonstrated by the attitudes of staff when we spoke with them and their approach to supporting people to maintain their independence.

The service was well-led. There was a comprehensive, formal quality assurance process in place. This meant that aspects of the service were formally monitored to ensure good care was provided and planned improvements and changes were implemented in a timely manner.

There were good systems in place for care staff or others to raise any concerns with the registered manager.