Archived: The Melanie Ann Trust

Updated 21 January 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 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.

This inspection took place on 14 December 2015, was unannounced and carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR 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 examined previous inspection reports and notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

The staff on duty assisted with the inspection process. We spoke with the registered manager and three members of care staff. We spoke with an advocate for one of the people who used the service and received written information from health and social care professionals. These included local authority care managers. We looked at the personal care records for two people, medicine records; activity records, staff recruitment records and staff training records. We observed the care provided to people who were unable to tell us about their experiences.

At the previous inspection on 13 March 2014, the service had met the standards of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

Updated 21 January 2016

We carried out this inspection on the 14 December 2015 and it was unannounced.

The Melanie Ann Trust Residential Home is a service registered for up to two people who do not require nursing care. It accommodates people with a learning disability and additional sensory impairments. The service is situated close to the Snodland town centre. There were two people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

The Melanie Ann Trust is a registered charity and operates another small service close by. Staff work across both services.

People had a limited ability to verbally communicate with us or engage directly in the inspection process. People demonstrated that they were happy in their home by showing warmth to the staff that were supporting them. Staff were attentive and communicated with people in a warm and friendly manner. Staff were available throughout the day, and responded quickly to people’s requests for care and support. We observed staff supporting people with their daily activities.

The service had a registered manager, who was also the nominated individual for the trust. 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff had been trained in how to protect people from abuse, and discussions with them confirmed that they knew the action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse. Staff understood the whistle blowing policy and how to use it. They were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager or outside agencies if this was needed.

Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions the staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in people’s best interests. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and showed they understood and promoted people’s rights through asking for people’s consent before they carried out care tasks.

Staff were knowledgeable about the needs and requirements of people using the service. Staff involved people in planning their own care in formats that they were able to understand, for example pictorial formats. Staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs.

Medicines were managed, stored, disposed of and administered safely. People received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.

People were provided with food and fluids that met their needs and preferences. Menus offered variety and choice.

There were risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each individual person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements as a result.

The registered manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints and relatives/advocates said they felt able to raise any concerns with staff.

Staff respected people and we saw several instances of a kindly touch or a joke and conversation as drinks or the lunch was served and at other times during the day.

People were given individual support to take part in their preferred hobbies and interests.

Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff.

Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

There were systems in place to obtain people’s views about the quality of the service and the care they received. People were listened to and their views were taken into account in the way the service was run.