Minshull House

Updated 19 October 2017

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 19 September 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR). A 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 also looked at the notifications and other intelligence the Care Quality Commission had received about the home.

During our inspection we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who were staying at Minshull House. This was because the people who were staying at Minshull House communicated in different ways and we were not always able to directly ask them their views about their experiences.

We spent time observing the care and support provided to people who were staying in the home to help us understand their experiences of the service. Our observations showed people appeared relaxed and at ease with the staff. We looked at the care records for two people, three staff personnel files, staff training records, staff duty rosters and records relevant to the quality monitoring of the service. We looked round the home, including people’s bedrooms, the kitchen, dining room lounge and the garden.

During the inspection we spoke with a total of three staff, including the registered manager. We also sought feedback about the service and spoke with two relatives after the inspection by telephone.

Updated 19 October 2017

The inspection took place on 19 September 2017 and was announced.

Situated on the doorstep of Croxteth Country Park and a short drive from Liverpool City Centre Minshull House offers autism-specific short breaks care for up to five adults in the West Derby suburb of Liverpool. The home has five ensuite bedrooms, with one bedroom on the ground floor. The home has a lounge, dining room and large kitchen. The ground floor is fully accessible for wheelchairs and has fully accessible bathing facilities. There is a large garden area at the rear and side of the building.

There was a registered manager in post; they provided an effective lead in the home and was supported by a clear management structure. 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 were three people staying at the service on the day of our inspection.

Medication was stored safely and securely. Staff had completed training in medication administration. They also undertook practical competency assessments to ensure they were administering medication safely. However support plans for giving people ‘as required’ medication had not been completed. The registered manager rectified this during the inspection. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were kept safe because there were arrangements in place to protect them from the risk of abuse. Staff understood what abuse was and the action to take if they should have to report concerns or actual abuse.

People’s nutritional needs were monitored by the staff. People received food of their choice.

Each person who used the service had a person centred plan. The plans we looked at contained relevant and detailed information. This helped to ensure staff had the information they needed to support people in the correct way and respect their wishes, their likes and dislikes.

A range of risk assessments had been undertaken depending on people’s individual needs to reduce the risk of harm. Risk assessments were in place and gave staff guidance to keep themselves and people who lived in the home safe, whilst in the home and when out in the community.

Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to provide care and support to help keep people safe and to offer support in accordance with individual need.

Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff were only able to start work at the home when the provider had received satisfactory pre-employment checks.

Staff received an induction and regular mandatory (required) training to update their practice and knowledge. Records showed us that staff were up-to-date with the training.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and responsibilities.

Staff had good knowledge of people’s likes and dislikes in respect of food and drinks. We saw that people had plenty to eat and drink during our inspection.

People who stayed at the service took part in activities both in the home and in the community. Some people attended school, college or a day centre.

During our visit we observed staff supported people in a caring manner and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff understood people’s individual needs and how to meet them. We saw that there were good relationships between people living at the home and staff, with staff taking time to talk and interact with people.

A procedure was in place for managing complaints and family members we spoke with were aware of what to do should they have a concern or complaint.

Systems were in place to check the quality of the service and ensure improvements were made. This included carrying out regular audits on areas of practice.

The building was fully accessible for people with mobility difficulties and those who used a wheelchair. We found it was clean and well maintained.