Southside

Southside is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 12 people. The service specialises in working age dementia providing care to younger adults living with dementia and mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people using the service. Following our inspection, the provider submitted a notification to CQC to amend their registration conditions to increase the maximum number of people living at Southside to 13. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider’s quality assurance processes required some additional improvements as they had not always been effective in identifying areas for development. The management team sought feedback to continually improve the service. People, relatives and staff told us Southside was managed well and they felt supported by the management team.

People, relatives and staff all told us the home environment felt safe and people were protected from the risk of avoidable harm and abuse. The provider had processes in place to safeguard people and staff were aware of how and who to report any concerns to. Risks posed to people due to their health conditions were managed safely. Staff knew what measures to take to monitor for pain and/or anxiety.

There were enough staff members on duty at the time of our visit. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place. Medication was stored, monitored and safely administered by trained, competent staff.

The home was clean with effective infection prevention control measures in place to mitigate the risk of cross contamination. There were processes in place to monitor incidents and accidents to identify potential trends and put in place action plans to reduce risk of reoccurrence.

People’s needs were assessed before joining the service. Staff completed a 12 week training induction when they first started with ongoing training to maintain their skills.

People’s nutritional needs were being met. The service worked effectively with health and social care professionals and services to maintain the health and wellbeing of people. The home environment was bright and spacious with a number of different areas around the home for people to relax in.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and relatives told us they found the staff to be kind and caring. People had been involved in discussions about their care and support through regular reviews. People’s independence was encouraged and they were treated with dignity and respect by the staff.

People’s needs were regularly reviewed and relatives told us they had been involved in care plan discussions. There had been few complaints made about the service. However, there was a complaints process in place that monitored for themes to reduce risk of reoccurrences. The provider had processes in place to support people who were approaching their end of life.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 21 February 2018).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted due to concerns about the number of people living at the home. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

We found the service had exceeded the registered number of people living at the home. There was no immediate or serious risk of harm from this concern. Please see the well-led section of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Southside on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Southside provides accommodation and care for up to12 people with working age dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people living at the home.

At the time of our inspection 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 providers auditing and quality assurance processes and systems were not consistently effective.

The provider had ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff to provide a service, and that they were recruited and trained safely and to the needs of the service.

People were kept safe by staff who understood how to identify when they were at risk of harm and abuse. People received their medicines on time and as prescribed.

People received care and support that was delivered in a person centred way to meet their individual needs. People and relatives were consulted on how they received their care and support.

People’s dignity was maintained and their rights to privacy were respected by the staff.

People had a variety of food, drinks and snacks available throughout the day. They were able to choose the meals that they preferred to eat.

People were supported to stay healthy and had access to health care professionals as required. They were treated with kindness and compassion and there were positive interactions between staff and the people living at the location.

Relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to and they responded to complaints and concerns appropriately.

We found that Southside was a homely environment. People who lived there were treated with care and consideration and efforts were made to promote independence and preserve individuality. The home has a garden which people were seen to enjoy and various activities that were arranged both in the home and elsewhere that met individual needs.

There were systems in place to ensure staff were recruited appropriately and supported with training and guidance by the provider. Staff were satisfied with the training provided and had attended training relevant to people's needs. Staff told us that they really enjoyed working there. Most staff had worked there for some time and clearly knew the people who lived there well.

We found evidence of quality processes including incidents, audits and care reviews. We saw that where issues were raised action was taken as a result. People we spoke with who lived at the home told us they really liked the staff and living at Southside. It was clear observing people who were unable to talk to us that they felt safe and supported by staff.

Care and treatment met peoples' needs. We spoke with one person who used the service and two relatives to obtain their views about the care provided. One person who used the service told us they were happy with the care they received. We spoke with two relatives, one said, 'I think they are excellent'. Another relative when speaking about the staff said, 'They are carers because they care, rather than just doing a job'.

We were satisfied that people were safe within the service.

The service recognised the merit in supporting the staff to deliver the care requirements of the people. We spoke with three care staff and they all felt well supported by the management team. One member of staff told us they felt able to ask for additional career support if they wanted.

The service had received only a few complaints and staff were aware of how to deal with them when they occurred.