Archived: The Links Care Centre

Updated 18 February 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 28 September 2015 and 2 October 2015 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of four inspectors and one expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience had experience with mental health services.

We looked at seven people’s care records. We spoke with 15 people that used the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spent time observing care and speaking with the manager and staff. We asked for feedback from the City of Bradford Adult Protection Unit. We looked at care plan documentation as well as documentation relating to the management of the service such as training records, policies and procedures.

On this occasion we did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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. Before the inspection, we reviewed all the information held about the provider.

Updated 18 February 2016

This inspection took place on 28 September 2015 and 2 October 2015 and was unannounced.

The Links Care Centre is a purpose built home which can accommodate up to 85 people on two floors. All the bedrooms have en-suite facilities and communal areas are provided throughout the home. It is located close to Bradford city centre and is easily accessible by public transport. The service specialises in the care of people with mental health needs.

The service did not have a registered manager. There had been no registered manager in place since July 2015. 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.

There was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Most people using the service told us they were well cared for and felt safe with the staff who provided their care and support.

We saw the service was recruiting more activity staff, but at the time of inspection activities were limited for most people who lived at the service.

Medicines records were accurate, complete and the service’s arrangements for the management of medicines protected people. People’s medicines were stored securely.

Accidents and incidents at the home were reviewed and monitored regularly. This was to identify possible trends and to prevent reoccurrences.

Staff recruitment practices at the home ensured that appropriate recruitment checks were carried out to determine the suitability of individuals to work with vulnerable adults. Security checks had been made with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks help employers make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable people.

People received care from staff who were provided with effective training and support to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their needs effectively.

Staff told us, and records we examined showed that regular supervisions were being carried out. All new staff received appropriate induction training and were supported in their professional development.

There were effective processes in place to help ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of safeguarding adults procedures. Staff understood what abuse was and how to report it if required. A whistleblowing policy was available that enabled staff to report any risks or concerns about practice in confidence with the organisation.

Staff were attentive when assisting people and people told us they usually responded promptly and kindly to requests for help. Most people living at the service had appropriate risk assessments in place to ensure risks were evaluated and that appropriate care and support was supplied.

Most people told us that staff treated them well and mostly we observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff were patient, unhurried and took time to explain things to people most of the time. However, some people who used the service told us there were times when their experience of care and support fell short of the required standard. This included times when staff were busy and people felt rushed. We were also told the food quality varied dependent on which staff were on duty.

Staff acted in a professional and friendly manner and treated people with dignity and respect. We observed staff supporting people and promoting their dignity and independence wherever possible.

Detailed procedures and information was available for staff in the event of an emergency at the service.

The provider had a Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) policy and further detailed information was available for staff. The requirements of MCA were followed and DoLS were appropriately applied for to make sure people were not restricted unnecessarily, unless it was in their best interests and safe.

People were supported to make sure they had enough to eat and drink, to have access to healthcare services and to receive on-going healthcare support. Relatives we spoke with told us communication with the service was good.

People were involved in their care and how they were supported. Care records confirmed the involvement of people in care planning and reviews. Advocacy information was accessible to people and their relatives.

Surveys were undertaken to seek and act on feedback from people and their relatives in order to improve the service.

Most care records were regularly reviewed and evaluated. They contained up to date and accurate information on people’s needs and risks associated with their care. Health and social care professionals and relatives were involved in the review process where applicable.

A complaints policy and procedure was in place. People told us that they felt able to raise any issues or concerns. Complaints received by the service were dealt with effectively and the service had recently received a number of compliments.