Kings Dock Mill

Updated 17 November 2018

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 was a comprehensive inspection.

This inspection took place on 24 October 2018 and was announced.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and the registered manager is not based at the service. We needed to be sure that they would be available.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included the statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service and other intelligence the Care Quality Commission had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law.

The registered provider 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 any improvements they plan to make. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

We looked at the care records for three people, three staff personnel files, staff training records, and records relevant to the quality monitoring of the service.

During the inspection we spoke with three people who received support and a total of four staff, including the registered manager.

Updated 17 November 2018

Kings Dock Mill provides personal care to people living in their own homes at the Kings Dock Mill apartment complex. People who use the service are provided with a range of hours of support per day in line with their assessed needs. The office base is located within the Kings Dock Mill complex, where a sleep-in service is provided. People who use the service have access to out of hours emergency support.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People we spoke with told us that staff supported them when they needed it. We saw through people's body language and chatter between them and staff that they were comfortable with the staff supporting them.

There were robust measures in place to ensure people were safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse and knew what to do if they saw or suspected abuse. Risk assessments were in place specific to their individual needs.

The service completed a number of robust safety and maintenance checks for the people they supported at Kings Dock Mill. These included, medicines, fire safety and water temperatures.

Sufficient staff were available to meet people's needs. Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. We found that staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to support people effectively and safely.

Staff were supported by the manager through regular supervisions and regular training. Staff meetings were held regularly.

Medicines were managed safely; people received support with their medicines as required. Staff had been trained to administer medicines; staff competency to safely administer medicines was checked regularly by the registered manager.

Regular checks and tests, such as gas, electricity, water safety and for fire safety were completed to maintain safety in the people’s homes.

People's needs were assessed and reviewed regularly to reflect people's current health and support needs. Appointments were made regularly with, for example, the GP and dentist, to help to maintain good health.

People were supported to shop for food and prepare meals in accordance with their support plans. Some people were supported to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People made decisions and choices in relation to their care, support received, daily routines and any activities they wished to take part in.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Person centred plans (PCPs) were written for the individual and informed staff of their preferences and wishes. We found they contained detailed information that enabled staff to meet people's needs. Support plans were completed to show the goals people wanted to achieve.

Staff knew the people well and how they communicated their needs and choices, including their preferred daily routine.

There was a complaints policy in place. However no complaints had been received. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain if they had a problem but said they were very happy with the service they received.

There was a person-centred culture in the organisation. Staff showed a commitment to provide support for the people to be able to live in their own home.

Quality assurance audits were completed by support staff and the registered manager which included, medication and health and safety checks.

There was a process completed annually where people had the opportunity to voice their opinions about the service. Feedback we saw was positive and complimentary.

There was a registered manager at the service. They were supported by a deputy manager, team leader and support workers.

The registered manager and registered provider met their legal requirements with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). They had submitted notifications and the ratings from the last inspection were clearly displayed in the office.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.