You are here

Lee Beck Mount Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2016

This inspection took place over two days. Day one was unannounced and on 4 August 2016 and day two was announced and on 8 August 2016. At the last inspection in June 2014 we found the provider was breaching one regulation because they did not have systems in place to make sure people’s nutritional needs were met. At this inspection we found the provider was still in breach of the same regulation.

Lee Beck Mount provides care for up to 13 people who have a learning disability. 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.

People told us they felt safe, and talked about how they were involved in health and safety procedures, which helped keep them informed about staying safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and their responsibility to report any concerns relating to abuse or allegations of abuse. People were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe management of medicines.

There was enough staff deployed to keep people safe. However, some people received additional funding for one to one staffing support but it was not clear from the rotas or care records these were being allocated appropriately. Staff were skilled and experienced to meet people’s needs because they received appropriate training and support.

People told us they were happy in the home and said they were well cared for. We observed staff providing support and it was evident they knew people well. We saw examples where care was person centred and independence was promoted, which included people making decisions about where to spend their time and when to make a drink. We also observed practices that did not promote individuality and independence such as meal everyone carrying their dinner on a tray from the serving hatch and eating their dinner from the tray, which replicated a ‘canteen’ type of setting rather than a ‘home’ setting.

People’s care records were personalised and provided information so staff understood their history and what was important to them. People’s needs were assessed and support plans described what staff needed to do to meet people’s needs. However, some information was not up to date so these were not always accurate. A range of other professionals were involved to help make sure people stayed healthy.

People who used the service and staff provided positive feedback about the management team who worked alongside everyone overseeing the care given and providing support and guidance where needed. The provider encouraged everyone to share their views and ideas about the service to help drive improvement.

The provider was not carrying out appropriate audits and checks so did not have effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Information to show how the service was well led was not always accessible. Concerns or complaints were responded to and resolved where possible to the satisfaction of the person.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) regulations 2014. You can see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

People felt safe. Health and safety was promoted to help people understand how to stay safe.

There were enough staff to keep people safe although we could not establish everyone was receiving the correct staffing allocation.

People were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe management of medicines.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

Staff received training and support to help them understand how to provide appropriate care to meet people’s needs.

The provider did not have arrangements in place to make sure people’s nutritional needs were met.

A range of other professionals were involved to help make sure people stayed healthy.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2016

The service was not consistently caring.

People told us they were happy in the home and said they were well cared for. Staff knew the people they were supporting well.

People had been involved in the support planning process. People’s care records were personalised and provided information so staff understood their history and what was important to them.

Some care practices were person centred and promoted independence. However, other aspects did not did not promote individuality and independence.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2016

The service was not consistently responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and support plans described what staff needed to do to meet people’s needs. However, some information was not up to date so these were not always accurate.

People engaged in a range of in house and community activities, which they enjoyed. Some people did not have activities planned and we saw they spent time with very little to do.

Systems were in place to respond to concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2016

The service was not consistently well led.

People who used the service and staff provided positive feedback about the management team.

People were encouraged to share their views and ideas about the service to help drive improvement.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Information to show how the service was well led was not always accessible.