You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The unannounced inspection took place on 14 September 2016 and was followed by a second announced day on the 16 September. We last inspected Syrian House in July 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we inspected.

Syrian House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 17 people. The service specialises in supporting people with enduring mental health needs and there were 14 people living at the service when we visited. Syrian House is a large detached property set in extensive, well maintained grounds within a quiet residential area. There are communal toilets and bathrooms for people to use. All bedrooms are for single occupancy with washbasins and one bedroom has ensuite facilities. There are communal areas, including lounge and smoking areas, a dining room and a large garden for people to use.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 living at the service and that any personal items remained safe too as bedrooms could be locked when they were not present.

The management of medicines followed safe working practices and people received their medicines on time and how they wanted.

Staff were aware of safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to implement safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. The provider took safety seriously and risks identified were assessed and reviewed and people were kept as safe as possible. Accidents were recorded, reported and monitored by the provider.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure that people could be safely supported at all times. If accidents or incidents had occurred, these were recorded and monitored for any learning and staff had acted swiftly to address any additional needs that arose. For example, when a fall had occurred, emergency treatment was sourced when necessary.

There were enough staff employed at the service who had been recruited safely, who received appropriate support and who were continually trained to meet the needs of the people using the service.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. It also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. We found the provider was complying with its legal responsibilities.

People were able to enjoy enough food and refreshments to meet their needs and if people needed additional support from staff, this was provided. Special dietary needs were also catered for. People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. Examples included appointments with their GP and visits to hospital for any emergencies arising and also scheduled appointments with specialist practitioners.

We observed staff speaking with people in kind, respectful and reassuring ways. People told us they felt their dignity and privacy were respected by staff. They also told us staff encouraged them to be as independent as possible and involved them with the running of the service and to be fully informed as to what was happening.

People’s had been assessed for their needs and their care and support records were detailed and had been updated as the need arose.

The provider had a range of activities for people to participate in if they chose to. People were also able to facilitate their own activities away from the service, either on their own or with support from staff members.

The provider had in place a complaints policy and people were aware of how to use it. We found that complaints were investigated appropriately and there had been one since the last inspection.

People and their relatives thought the service was well led. We found the provider had audits in place to measure and monitor the quality of the service and meetings took place to discuss various aspects of the service with the staff and the people using the service and their relatives.

There was an open door policy within the service and people were encouraged to speak about any issues that concerned or worried them. A variety of systems were in place to gather the views of people and their relatives, including surveys and regular meetings.

Notifications which are a legal requirement of registration, had not always been sent to the Commission in a timely manner and this limits the well led section to require improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was safe.

People were safely supported with taking their prescribed medicines. Medicines were stored, recorded and managed by staff who were assessed to be competent.

Accidents were recorded, reported and monitored and any risks identified were assessed to minimise the possibility of harm as much as possible.

There were enough suitably recruited and trained staff on duty and staff we spoke with knew about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and how to report any issues of concern.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received training and development. This helped to ensure people were cared for by knowledgeable and competent staff.

People were supported to make their own decisions and where they lacked capacity to do so care staff ensured the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met.

People received a good selection of food and refreshments and their nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was caring.

People thought staff were kind and caring and they told us they felt involved in what they did and how the service was organised.

People were respected and their privacy, dignity and independence were maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People had their needs assessed and care/support was planned.

The service had a range of activities for people of all abilities to participate in. People were also encouraged to access hobbies within the local community.

A complaints procedure was in place and people and their relatives knew how to complain.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

Notifications, which are a legal requirement of registration, had not always been sent to the Commission in a timely manner and this limits the well led section to require improvement.

Staff felt supported and were aware of their responsibilities and the standards expected of them when providing care and support to people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in place and people and their relatives thought the service was well managed.

A range of audits and checks were in place to support the quality of the service provided.