Archived: Mrs Agnes Harriette Lucinda Coker - 211 Brighton Road

At our last inspection in November 2013 we identified areas where the provider was not meeting the essential standards of quality and safety. They sent us an action plan to tell us how the service would become compliant with the regulations. We carried out an inspection to review these improvements.

As part of this inspection we spoke with the two people using the service and the registered provider. We toured the premises and reviewed records relating to the two people using the service and the management of the home.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The people using the service told us they felt safe living at the home.

We found that accurate up to date records of people's care and support needs were not being regularly maintained, reviewed and monitored. This meant that people were not always protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment. A compliance action has been set for this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

People usually received their medicines but the service did not consistently follow safe practice around storage and administration. A compliance action has been set for this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place although the registered provider and staff had not updated their training for some time.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs were being met.

It was clear from speaking with the registered provider that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.

The service had made timely referrals for health and social care support when they identified concerns in people's wellbeing. Social care professionals reported that the service worked well with them to enable people to maintain their health. Comments included, 'no problems, if anything they are too over caring' and 'they have always been very friendly and alerted me if there are any concerns'.

Is the service caring?

People felt that staff treated them well and that staff showed concern for their wellbeing. One person told us, 'the staff are very nice, they often ask if I am alright.'

We found that staff respected people's decisions and supported them to live as independently as possible.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Care records showed that people who lived at the home were supported to access health and social care services such as GPs and mental health support.

People had access to activities that were important to them and were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well-led?

The provider did not have adequate quality assurance systems in place to check that the quality of the service being delivered was meeting people's needs. The arrangements to monitor service provision were limited and failed to identify shortfalls and ensure that people are well cared for and safe. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

External professionals were involved in people's care so that the person's health and social care needs were monitored and met. The service worked well with other agencies to make sure people using the service received coordinated care.

We spoke to two people who lived at the home. They told us that they were content living there. One person said 'it's much better than other places I have been.' We saw that the support people received met their identified needs although we had some concerns about how risks to people were managed because people who needed support with their medicines were not being sufficiently monitored.

We saw that the accommodation was adequate to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

We saw that staff had had suitable training and were supported in their work but we noted that information to verify that a new member of staff was of good character and suitably experienced and qualified to support people, was not available. We were concerned about the storage of people's personal information.

We spoke to this persons care coordinator. They told us the person was doing well and the provider was meeting their needs. They told us the provider offered a good rehabilitation service and they had placed a number of people there in the past. They told us they were more than happy to place people at the home in the future.