Archived: Omega Elifar Limited - 53 Churchfields

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection published on 17 September 2016 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.

Why the service is rated good

Staff had the knowledge and confidence to identify safeguarding concerns and had attended training in safeguarding people at risk.

The registered manager and staff had a robust approach to managing risks to people. There were comprehensive risk assessments in place to mitigate the risks.

Appropriate recruitment checks had taken place to prevent the recruitment of staff unsuitable to work with people at risk.

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 support this practice.

People were supported in a person-centred way and the service was developed and designed in line with Registering the Right Support guidance.

Staff knew people well including their preferences and personal histories.

People were supported to have a balanced diet with as much choice and participation in food preparation as possible.

The registered manager and staff made appropriate referrals to outside agencies or healthcare services to ensure positive outcomes for people.

Staff supported people in a kind and compassionate way. Feedback from relatives confirmed that the service was caring towards people using the service.

People were supported to be as independent as possible for example by accessing the local community.

There was an open culture in the service with consistently strong leadership from the registered manager.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor and improve the service.

People, relatives and staff were actively involved in the delivery and improvement of the service.

The service met all of the relevant fundamental standards.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their role and responsibility to keep people safe from the risk of abuse; staff had access to relevant safeguarding guidance.

Risks to people had been identified within their care plans and measures were in place to manage these safely for people. Staff understood the potential risks to people and how to manage these to ensure their safety.

People were cared for by a sufficient number of staff to keep them safe and meet their individual needs. Staff had undergone the required pre-employment checks to ensure their suitability for their role.

People’s medicines were administered safely by competent staff who followed the provider’s guidance in relation to the safe management of medicines.

Staff had received an induction into their role and underwent ongoing training. They were provided with opportunities for professional development. Staff received regular supervision. People were cared for by staff who were supported in their role.

People’s consent was sought by staff for their day to day care. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions staff had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Three people were subject to DoLS authorisations. People’s human rights were protected as decisions made on their behalf met legal requirements.

People were adequately supported to ensure they received enough to eat and drink. People were supported to make informed choices about their meals. Meal times were a pleasant experience for people.

Staff ensured people received an annual review of their health with their GP and had a resulting action plan to ensure their health care needs were met. People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals as required in order to maintain good health.

People experienced positive, supportive relationships with the staff who cared for them. A person told us “It’s good” and “Staff are nice.” Relatives confirmed staff were caring towards people. Staff spent time with people engaging them on topics that they knew interested the person.

People were continually consulted by staff about decisions that related to their care and environment. Staff understood people’s communication and behavioural needs and took these into account when supporting them to make decisions.

Staff treated people with respect and dignity. People’s rights to privacy were respected and balanced with the need to ensure their personal safety.

Staff had a thorough knowledge and understanding of each person’s care needs, preferences, likes and dislikes. People had comprehensive care plans that were responsive to their needs. People were supported to participate in a range of activities both within the service and the local community to meet their social care needs.

A relative told us “The manager takes action on any issues.” A copy of the complaints policy was available for people in a pictorial format. No complaints had been received about the service but processes were in place to enable people to make a complaint if they needed to.

The organisation’s values were embedded within the service and staff practice. Processes were in place to enable staff to raise any issues.

A person’s relative told us “The manager is extremely good” and “Very approachable.” Staff also felt well supported by the manager whom they found to be approachable and supportive. The registered manager spent time working alongside staff which enabled them to monitor the quality of the service people received.

Processes were in place to regularly monitor the quality of the service provided. The operations manager visited the service regularly and provided the registered manager with a written report following each visit of their findings and any actions required to improve the quality of the service for people. There were systems in place to regularly update the provider on the quality of care and to drive improvements to the service for people.

Relatives were positive about the care and support provided by the service. One relative told us that the staff were 'Wonderful ' they really seem to tune into (their relative).' Another relative said that their relative was the happiest they'd been anywhere. This meant that the support needs of people using the service were being met.

Staff told us that they were occasionally asked to cover sickness but were not asked to work unreasonable or excessive hours. They were able to meet the needs of the people using the service because they had detailed knowledge of specific needs. All were able to refer to people's individual needs during conversation. This meant there were enough qualified, skilled and experience staff to meet people's needs.

Staff said they had been trained in all areas necessary for their role. They told us they had regular supervision meetings with the registered manager and felt supported in their role. The registered manager told us that supervision meetings were held with staff every six to eight weeks.

The service obtained regular monthly feedback from people who use the service. They had a meeting with their keyworker every month which enabled them to discuss the support they received and put forward any changes. We reviewed a sample of records of these meetings. People put forward suggestions such as doing a cookery course.

We observed that staff communicated effectively with people using the service and supported them in ways that promoted their independence. Support provided was individual to people's needs. Health issues and any risks associated with the individual's care and support were assessed and managed well, taking into account people's safety and their right to make choices.

The service had systems in place to ensure people were protected from abuse, or the risk of abuse, and their rights were respected and upheld. Staff had an understanding of safeguarding issues and how to report abuse or allegations of abuse.

We observed people were supported by adequate numbers of staff, all of whom received ongoing training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to meet people's needs. We saw feedback from a relative who wrote 'staff appear calm and in control.'

We saw that there were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service that people received and to continually make improvements. We saw feedback from a relative that told us 'staff have a positive can do attitude and really care about my (family).'