Archived: Crompton Drive

Updated 13 August 2016

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 inspection took place on 18 July 2016 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice was given because the service is a small care home and the people who live there are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector.

We checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

We spoke with the one person living at the home, their relative, two staff and the manager. The person living at the home did not use speech and was unable to respond to questions. We also spent time looking at records, including one care record, three staff files, staff training plans, complaints and other records relating to the management of the service. We also observed the delivery of care at various points during the inspection.

Updated 13 August 2016

This inspection took place on 18 July 2016 and was announced.

1 Crompton Drive is a residential service which provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of three people. At the time of the inspection one person was living at the home.

A registered manager was not in post. However the manager of the home was in the process of applying to become the 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.

We saw that medicines were stored safely and securely in the person’s bedroom and that staff maintained a record of administration. However, we saw that the records in relation to medicines contained conflicting and confusing information.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Risk to the person living at the home was appropriately assessed and recorded in care records. We saw risk assessments relating to; clothing, medicines, eating–out and fire. Each risk assessment focused on maximising the person’s independence while safely managing any risks and had been recently reviewed.

Accidents and incidents were recorded in appropriate detail and assessed by the manager. The manager was required to submit information electronically to the provider. The information was then analysed by a specialist team to identify patterns and triggers.

The home had sufficient staff to meet the needs of the person living there. Staff were recruited safely subject to the completion of appropriate checks.

The home had a robust approach to safety monitoring and employed external contractors to service and check; gas safety, electrical safety and fire equipment.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the person living at the home. Staff were required to complete a programme of relevant training. The training matrix provided indicated that all training required by the provider was up to date.

The majority of staff were given regular formal supervision which was recorded on their file. However, we saw from records that one member of staff had not received formal supervision recently.

The person living at the home was supported to maintain good health by accessing a range of community services.

Throughout the inspection we observed staff interacting with the person in a manner which was kind, compassionate and caring. We saw that staff spoke regularly with the person living at the home. They explained what they were doing and discussed their needs and activities. Staff knew the needs of the person well.

Privacy and dignity were protected and promoted by staff. Staff spoke with respect about the person living at the home and promoted their dignity in practical ways. We saw that staff respected the person living at the home and understood their rights in relation to privacy and dignity.

Relatives were free to visit at any time. The property was set-up as a family home with different areas where people could entertain visitors in private if they chose. Decoration, fixtures and furniture made the building feel homely and welcoming.

Care records showed that assessment and care planning were completed in the presence of the individual where possible and involved staff and other social care professionals.

We saw that the person’s individual preferences and personality was reflected in the decoration of their bedroom and in shared areas of the home. The person living at the home was supported to follow their interests and to maintain relationships with family members and other people in the local community.

The home had a complaints procedure and a complaints book available to people living at the home and visitors. The records that we saw indicated that no formal complaints had been received in the previous 12 months.

The manager implemented an approach to quality monitoring which was appropriate for the size of the home. In conjunction with the senior support worker they undertook regular monitoring of; staff performance, satisfaction and the physical environment and addressed issues as they arose.

The manager supported the inspection process in conjunction with a senior support worker. They were honest about issues identified during the inspection process and subsequently provided evidence and re-assurances that specific issues had been rectified.

Staff were clearly motivated to do their jobs and enjoyed working at the home. Staff understood their roles and demonstrated that they knew what was expected of them.