Archived: 5 Duke Street

Updated 15 July 2015

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.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a supportive care to promote independence for adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in when we visited. The inspection team comprised of two inspectors.

We reviewed other information that we held about the service such as notifications, which are events which happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about, and information that had been sent to us by other agencies. This included the local authority who commissioned services from the provider and the local authority safeguarding team.

During our inspection we spoke with one person who lived at the service, three staff including the registered manager. We also looked at records and charts relating to 11 people, three staff recruitment records and we observed the way that support was provided.

We also looked at other information related to the running of and the quality of the service. This included quality assurance audits, maintenance schedules, training information for care staff, staff duty rotas, meeting minutes and arrangements for managing complaints.

Updated 15 July 2015

This inspection was carried out on 15 May 2015 and was announced. Nabida Care Limited. Had been inspected previously in April 2014 and found to be non-compliant due to lack of quality monitoring and lack of feedback from service users (Regulation 10). An action plan had been submitted 6 June 2014 where provider stated they would be compliant by 5 September 2014. We found that there had been improvements made however, the improvements had not been embedded.

The service provided accommodation in 13 self-contained flats for people between the age of 18 and 65 who have high levels of need or risks are supported to gain skills which will enable them to eventually move onto a permanent place of residency. People who use the service had previously required in-patient mental health support.

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.

People were encouraged to make their own decisions about their lifestyle choices that would protect them from avoidable harm, they were assessed for their risk to others and risks to themselves; people’s human rights were respected. People were encouraged to maintain a recovery programme and staff worked with other agencies to monitor for substance use.

People were encouraged to become independent. People were helped to budget and manage their finances and staff facilitated people to find meaningful activities and people received care that was individual to their needs.

There was sufficient staffing to provide for people’s needs and staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. The staff team worked well together and respected the manager.

Staff were supportive and developed therapeutic relationships with people who used the service.

When people were discharged from the service they were able to access the support of staff for an agreed period.

Quality monitoring systems were in place however these were in their infancy. There was not an effective system to gain people’s feedback about the service.