You are here

The S.T.A.R. Foundation Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 December 2017

The inspection was unannounced, and took place on 13 and 14 September 2017. The home was last inspected in July 2015, where the home was rated “Good” overall.

The S.T.A.R Foundation is a 60 bed service providing residential and nursing care to people with a range of support needs including physical disability, mental health support needs, learning disability and dementia. It is known locally as Astrum House.

The home is located close to the town centre of Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is in its own grounds in a quiet, residential area, but close to many ameneties and public transport links. The home comprises three discrete units, each consisting of separate “pods” of four en suite bedrooms with a kitchen/diner and living area. In addition there are central communal facilities, including a large lounge area, a therapy pool where people could access hydrotherapy treatments, and a sensory room”

The service had a registered manager 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found that people received care which was tailored to their individual needs, and upheld their dignity and privacy. There were plentiful activities both within the home and within the wider community. People using the service praised the activities available to them.

Staff were well trained in relation to keeping people safe from the risks of harm or abuse, and spoke with knowledge about this. Medicines were stored and handled safely.

Recruitment procedures and audit procedures were sufficiently robust to ensure people’s safety.

There were up to date and thorough risk assessments relating to issues where people were at risk of harm, or presented a risk to others, and we saw evidence that staff were adhering to them.

We found that improvements were required in the way consent was obtained and recorded.

Mealtimes were observed to be comfortable and pleasant experiences for people, and people told us they enjoyed their food.

Staff told us they received a good standard of training which enabled them to better carry out their roles.

The management team were accessible and were familiar to people using the service. The provider had a thorough system in place for monitoring the quality of service people received.

The provider was failing to comply with legislation in relation to the requirement to display their CQC rating on their website, as well as in the requirement to notify CQC about certain key incidents within the home.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 December 2017

The service was safe. Staff were well trained in relation to keeping people safe from the risks of harm or abuse, and spoke with knowledge about this. Medicines were stored and handled safely.

Recruitment procedures and audit procedures were sufficiently robust to ensure people’s safety.

There were up to date and thorough risk assessments relating to issues where people were at risk of harm, or presented a risk to others, and we saw evidence that staff were adhering to them.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 12 December 2017

The service was not always effective, as improvements were required in the way consent was obtained and recorded.

Mealtimes were observed to be comfortable and pleasant experiences for people, and people told us they enjoyed their food.

Staff told us they received a good standard of training which enabled them to better carry out their roles.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 December 2017

The service remains good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 December 2017

The service remains good.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 December 2017

The service was not always well led. The management team were accessible and were familiar to people using the service. The provider had a thorough system in place for monitoring the quality of service people received.

The provider was failing to comply with legislation in relation to the requirement to display their CQC rating on their website, as well as in the requirement to notify CQC about certain key incidents within the home.