You are here

Parr Mount Court Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 20 October 2016

The inspection took place on the 1 September 2016 and was announced. The registered provider was given a short period of notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Parr Mount is an extra care service that is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. Extra care is where live in their own flat, however have the option of receiving care should they need it. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 33 people.

A manager was in post who had been registered with the CQC since October 2013. 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.

Systems were not always effective in identifying where areas of improvement were required. For example there was no formal process in place for monitoring accidents and incidents and we found that staff training was not always up-to-date. Systems had also failed to identify where risk assessments had not been completed in people's care records. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Personalised risk assessments were not always completed around people’s individual needs. For example risk assessments for two people at risk of developing pressure sores had not been completed. In another example, a risk assessment had not been completed around the risks associated with one person’s diabetes. We followed up on these issues to ensure these people were safe, and found that they were. We have made a recommendation around completing risk assessments in relation to people’s needs.

Training had not always been updated to ensure that staff knowledge was up-to-date. People did not raise any concerns about the competencies of staff, and we did not observe any examples of poor practice. The registered manager had a plan in place to ensure that staff training would be brought up-to-date.

There were robust recruitment processes in place which ensured that staff were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. New staff had been through appropriate checks, and had been through an interview process which had helped the registered manager determine their suitability for the role.

There were sufficient numbers of staff in place to meet people’s needs. The registered provider was changing the staffing rotas to increase the number of staff on shift, in response to a consultation with staff. This ensured that people’s safety was maintained, and also showed that the registered manager had involved staff in making improvements to the service.

People had been supported to take their medication as prescribed. Medication administration records (MARs) showed that staff had given these as prescribed. These were stored in people’s own homes, and care records outlined where staff were required to administer these, or where people took their own medicines.

Care records contained information around people’s life history, and preferred daily routines. This helped staff to get to know people. People told us that positive relationships had developed between themselves and staff, and that staff treated them with respect. People also confirmed that staff maintained their dignity and privacy.

Care records outlined where people required support with meal and drink preparation. People confirmed that staff provided them with the support they required with regards to this. We also observed that staff left people with juice or water to ensure that they did not become dehydrated. This protected people from the risk of poor nutritional intake.

People were supported to access support from health professionals where they required help to do so. This helped ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 20 October 2016

The service was not always safe.

Risk assessments were not always completed around people's needs, which means that information around the management of risk was not always available to staff. We have made a recommendation around this.

Recruitment processes were robust and helped to ensure that staff employed were of suitable character. There were sufficient numbers of staff in place to keep people safe.

People were supported to take their medication as prescribed, which helped ensure their health and wellbeing was maintained.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 October 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had not always completed refresher training, however the registered manager had a plan in place to rectify this.

People confirmed that they were offered choice and control over their day-to-day care, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Care records contained details around the support people required with their diet. This helped protected people from the risk of malnutrition and dehydration.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 October 2016

The service was caring.

Positive relationships had developed between staff and people. People confirmed that staff were respectful and maintained their dignity.

People’s privacy and confidentiality was maintained by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 October 2016

The service was responsive.

Care records contained personalised information around people’s life history and personal preferences, which enabled staff to provide appropriate support.

Information contained within care records was reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it remained up-to-date and accurate.

People told us that they knew how to complain, and felt that the registered manager would respond to their concerns.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 20 October 2016

The service was not always well led.

Quality monitoring systems were not always effective at identifying where improvements where required.

People felt that the service was well-led, and spoke positively about the registered manager, commenting that she was approachable.

The registered manager was aware of those situations where they needed to notify the CQC of specific incidents that occurred within the service. This ensured that the registered provider acted in accordance with the law.