Archived: 11 Skylines Village

Updated 1 June 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.

We visited 11 Skylines Village on 15 and 18 March 2016 to undertake an inspection of the service. The inspection was announced. This was to ensure that the people we needed to talk with would be available.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector on the first day of the visit, and two inspectors on the subsequent day.

We checked information that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) held about the service which included the previous inspection reports and notifications sent to CQC by the provider before the inspection. The notifications provide us with information about changes to the service and any significant concerns reported by the provider.

We were unable to check information on the Provider Information Return (PIR). The provider told us the form had not been received due to technical difficulties. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, including what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. The provider must ensure the PIR is submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) when this is requested and inform us if they have difficulties accessing the information.

We spoke with four people who used the service and two relatives. We contacted the local authority and Healthwatch and spoke with two health and social care professionals to gather information and obtain their views regarding the service. Healthwatch are a consumer group that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care

We viewed the records in relation to five people’s care including their support plans, risk assessments, daily records and their medicines records. We also spoke with four care workers, one care coordinator, one recruitment consultant and the care manager. We did not speak with the registered manager but he informed us he would be unavailable on the dates of the inspection due to unforeseen circumstances. However, the care manager was able assist us in his absence.

We looked at records relating to the management of the service. These included five staff recruitment and training records, minutes of meetings with staff, quality assurance audits, staff rotas and a selection of the provider’s policies and procedures.

Updated 1 June 2016

We inspected 11 Skylines Village on 15 and 18 March 2016, the inspection was announced. We gave the provider notice to ensure the key people we needed to speak with were available. Our last inspection took place on the 11 July 2014 and we found that the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we checked.

11 Skylines Village provides personal care and support for adults living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 20 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

The provider did not have the appropriate systems in place to ensure medicines were managed safely. There were discrepancies in the daily recording of medicines. Staff had not received the required mandatory medicines training. The medicines policy did not clearly identify and/or address the reporting procedures regarding the refusal of medicines and reviewing of people’s medicines.

Risk assessments had not been reviewed when there were changes to people’s health care needs and home environment. Risk assessments were not always fully completed to provide a comprehensive overview of the assessments carried out. Historical risk assessments had been undertaken by staff who had not received training in assessing risks.

Recruitment checks were not thoroughly carried out to assess the suitability of the staff employed by the service.

The procedures for lone working, safeguarding and whistleblowing required updating to reflect who staff would report to in the event of any concerns.

Incidents were reported in a timely manner to health and social care professionals when staff had recognised changes to people’s support needs. There was a system in place for staff to follow in the event they were unable to gain access to a person’s home.

There was a suitable number of staff deployed to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff provided flexible call times to meet the requirements of the people they supported. People were satisfied with the consistency of the care staff.

Staff had not always received continuing professional development when learning objectives had been identified. Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

Health and social care professionals were involved in reviewing people’s health care needs.

Records demonstrated people were involved in the choices regarding their food preferences and documents were in place to monitor people’s nutritional intake. People told us staff offered them choices before foods were prepared.

People were not always shown respect as they were not always told about changes with regard to who would be providing their care.

People using the service and their relatives told us that staff were attentive and caring and went beyond what was expected of them. People spoke positively about the staff and told us the same regular staff supported them in their homes.

Care plans reflected that people had discussed their interests and hobbies. People told us their cultural and lifestyle needs were met by the service. Information was provided in a way that was accessible and appropriate to the needs of the people who used the service.

People and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint. The registered manager responded to complaints in a timely manner with details recorded of any action taken.

Robust quality assurance systems were not in place to improve the quality of care being delivered. Feedback was sought from people to obtain their views and comments regarding the service.

We found four breaches of regulations relating to the management of risks to people’s health and welfare. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.