Archived: Roseberry Mansions

Updated 12 January 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

Inspection team: This inspection was carried out by two ASC inspectors, a pharmacy inspector and one Expert by Experience. An Expert-by-Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type: Roseberry Mansions provides care and support to people living in a supported living setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of the inspection. 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.

Notice of inspection: We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

What we did when preparing for and carrying out this inspection:

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete 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. We reviewed the completed PIR and previous inspection reports before the inspection. We reviewed other information we had about the provider, including notifications of any safeguarding concerns or other incidents affecting the safety and wellbeing of people.

What we did during the inspection:

An inspection site visit took place on the 7th, 8th and 13th November 2018. It included speaking to the registered manager, a deputy manager, a care coordinator, a support officer and four staff members. We also spoke with six people who use the service and three relatives. During the inspection we reviewed six people's care records, which included care plans, risk assessments and daily care notes. We also looked at Medicines Administration Records (MARs) for six people. We also looked at six staff files, complaints and quality monitoring and audit information.

During our visit we also spoke with and received feedback from six visiting professionals.

What we did after the inspection:

Following our visit, we contacted a number of health and social care professionals who worked regularly with the agency. We received feedback from five of them.

Updated 12 January 2019

What life is like for people using this service:

People using the service and their relatives gave us positive feedback about the service. They thought the service was well managed and in general they were happy with the support received.

People had their care needs, preferences and potential risks assessed. The system currently used by the service to record these needs and risks was complex and the gathered information was not always readily available to staff. The registered manager assured us that action would be taken to address this.

The service had systems in place to ensure people were protected from harm. These included safeguarding policies and procedures and appropriate recruitment practice. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure people’s needs were met. Suitable health and safety and infection control practices were followed by staff. Medicines were managed according to the current guidelines and people received their medicines safely and as prescribed

Staff who supported people had appropriate skills, training and experience to provide effective and safe care. Staff were supported to carry out their roles through regular supervision, spot checks and yearly appraisal of their skills.

People were supported to live a healthy life. When required staff supported people to have sufficient food and drink and the support provided was in line with people’s dietary needs, cultural and personal preferences. When people’s health deteriorated staff ensured people had prompt access to relevant health services.

Care and treatment were provided in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People could choose how care was provided to them and staff asked for people’s consent before supporting them.

People were encouraged to be as independent as they could and be involved in making decisions about their care. People thought staff were caring and they said they had the opportunity to discuss their care needs and wishes in monthly meetings with their care worker.

Staff had good understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences and chosen ways of living. People were supported to adhere to their cultural and religious beliefs as well as be open about their sexual orientation or gender identity.

People were encouraged to give their feedback about the quality of the service they received. There were various forums at the service where people could express their opinion and it was listened to. The complaints policy was in place if people chose to make a formal complaint and these were dealt with promptly.

The management team provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The management team and care staff knew what was expected from them. Staff felt the service was well led and management had been supportive and easy to approach when they needed to discuss any issue.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service delivered. The registered manager was proactive in addressing issues of concern and drove improvements to ensure lessons were learnt and the possibility of problems reoccurring was reduced.

External health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about the service. They said staff were caring and had sufficient skills to support people. They also said the management team was transparent and honest about the service provided to people.

We made one recommendation related to effective care planning.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 13 April 2016)

About the service: Roseberry Mansions is a supported living scheme that provides 40 flats for older people. At the time of our inspection There were 25 people receiving support.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service and we will revisit it in the future to check if they continue to provide good quality of care to people who use it.