Background to this inspection
Updated
30 April 2021
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.
As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe, and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.
This inspection took place on 9 April 2021 and was announced.
Updated
30 April 2021
This comprehensive inspection was announced at short notice and took place on 30 October 2017. When we last inspected the service in July 2016 we found that the service was meeting all of the regulations we checked. We rated the service requires improvement overall.
Support for Living - 37 Barlby Road provides care and support for up to four people living with complex learning disabilities and physical disabilities. People have their own rooms and share bathroom facilities. People shared bathroom facilities and hoisting equipment was available when needed. At the time of this inspection four adults were receiving care and support from the service.
There was a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report upon our findings. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is regarded as necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, to protect themselves or others. These safeguards are there to make sure that people receiving support are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. Services should only deprive someone of their liberty when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way to look after them, and it should be done in a safe and correct way.
Staff had received training on (DoLS) and the (MCA) and in theory understood what to do if people could not make decisions about their care needs in line with the MCA.
Staff developed caring relationships with people using the service. However, staff were not always adopting a creative and meaningful approach to maximising people’s quality of life in terms of the range of activities people were able to access.
People's cultural preferences were documented in their care and support plans. However, we saw little evidence that these preferences were being promoted and provided for in relation to meal choices.
Safeguarding training was completed by all staff and refreshed when needed. Staff were trained to protect people from abuse and harm and knew how to refer to the local authority and others if they had any concerns.
Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual and were up to date and being reviewed in line with the provider’s policies and procedures. Each risk assessment included clear measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow and to make sure people were protected from harm.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of recurrence could be reduced.
There were enough appropriately skilled and experienced staff deployed to the service. Staff had completed the necessary training to equip them with the skills and knowledge to carry out their duties.
There were suitable arrangements in place for the safe storage and disposal of medicines and all medicines were administered by staff who had received the appropriate training to be assessed as competent to carry out these duties.
Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments as required and liaised with people’s family members, GPs and other healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were met appropriately. Advocates and family members (where appropriate) were involved in reviews of people’s care and support.
The provider had implemented and was operating effective systems to audit different aspects of the service; these included the administration of medicines, care records and reviews, fire safety procedures and health and safety checks.
During our visit we were unable to review people’s proof of identity, right to work status and references as this information was not held at the service. We requested and received information from the provider relating to staff recruitment demonstrating that criminal record checks and other relevant checks were undertaken before staff commenced working with people.
We have made two recommendations in relation to the development of people's activity programmes and meal planning and preparation.