Archived: North West Community Services (Manchester) Limited - 35 Grosvenor Avenue

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 4 March 2016. The service was last inspected in February 2014 and was meeting standards at that time.

There was 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.

When we spoke with people living at the home they told us they were settled and felt safe at the home. We saw they were relaxed in the company of staff and there was a warm rapport.

To support up to three people being accommodated at the home at any one time we saw there was sufficient staff in place. We saw from the duty rota that staff numbers were consistently in place to provide safe care.

We looked at how staff were recruited and the processes to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. We saw checks had been made so that staff employed were ‘fit’ to work with vulnerable people.

We found the home were good at managing risks so that people could be as independent as possible.

We saw there were good systems in place to monitor medication safety and that staff were trained to help ensure their competency so that people received their medicines safely.

The staff we spoke with clearly described how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported. Training records confirmed staff had undertaken safeguarding training. All of the staff we spoke with were clear about the need to report any concerns they had.

Arrangements were in place for checking the environment to ensure it was safe. For example, health and safety audits were completed on a regular basis where obvious hazards were identified.

We observed staff interacting with the people they supported. We saw how staff communicated and supported people as individuals. Staff were able to explain in detail each person’s care needs and how they communicated these needs. People we spoke with were aware that staff had the skills and approach needed to ensure people were receiving the right care. The comments we received evidenced people received effective support.

We saw that the home was working within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) [MCA]. This is legislation to protect and empower people who may not be able to make their own decisions. Staff understood about Deprivation of Liberty [DoLS] authorisations and the circumstances this might be used. DoLS is part of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and aims to ensure people in care homes and hospitals are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom unless it is in their best interests.

We were told that meal times were flexible. People being supported were encouraged to plan and prepare their own meals on occasions. We also saw evidence that staff tried to promoted healthy eating options and reviewed this on-going with people.

We assessed whether people were treated with dignity, respect, kindness and compassion. One person commented on the caring nature and philosophy in the home and was able to compare it, favourably, with other care homes / services they had been involved with. The interactive skills displayed by the staff when engaged with people were warm and supportive and showed a personalised approach to help ensure people’s wellbeing.

We found that care plans and records included people’s preferences and reflected their identified needs from admission and during their stay. There was good evidence that care plans had been discussed with people on a regular basis so they felt involved in their care. One person said, “I like it here, the staff are lovely. I can get up and go out when I want.”

Processes were in place to seek the views of people living at the home and their families. Managers were able to evidence a series of quality assurance processes and audits carried out. These helped ensure standards of care were maintained consistently as well as providing feedback for on-going development of the service.

We reviewed healthcare records and found them to be up to date. We reviewed plans of care in place for people and found that they reflected people's health and social needs.

We reviewed processes in place at the home to support people's nutritional needs. We found that people living at the home were actively supported to make choices and be involved in food choices. We found that staff were knowledgeable on managing peoples nutritional need's.

We reviewed policies and procedures in place to safeguard people living at the home. We spoke to staff who were able to explain how these procedures worked and what to do if they had a concern.

We reviewed infection control arrangements at the home and were satisfied that staff understood the importance of infection control.

We looked at arrangements in place to ensure adequate staffing levels at the home. We spoke with people who lived at the home who told us they felt supported. We spoke with staff who were able to tell us things that were in place to ensure that staffing levels were adequate.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Staff spoken with were aware of people's care needs and said they were able to access care notes so that information was always available.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. We saw people were engaged with staff and other people living at the home. This helped ensure people had good feelings of wellbeing.

We received positive comments from people we spoke with about the staff which helped evidence their competency and approach to care. Comments include: ' One of the staff are helping me to go to the chiropodist this afternoon.' ' I like living here ' the staff are good.'

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that people received. We were told that the views of people were sought via regular daily interaction and formal reviews. There was also a yearly survey carried out and people living at the home, as well as relatives and visitors are canvassed for their opinions