12 December 2013
During a routine inspection
Tattenham House was a 10 bedded service for men with a learning disability and complex needs. It provided support for people who display higher risk or offending type behaviour.
Tattenham House was in the process of closing at the time of our visit with only two people living at the unit as voluntary inpatients and no- one remaining who was detained under the Mental Health Act 2005. There were plans for the last two people to move on and we were assured that the unit would stay open until that had been achieved.
Our visit was early in the morning and unannounced and we found the building fresh and clean and people were treated with respect and dignity.
People who used the service told us about activities they were planning for that day such as going for a walk or to the day centre. They said the staff were alright, the food was nice, they got enough to eat and their rooms were warm enough. One person told us they liked their room and the home and another person told us they did not.
We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan and there were contingency plans to continue appropriate and safe care in foreseeable emergencies.
We found that people who used the service, staff and visitors were not always protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. This was because the Trust had not maintained toilet and washing facilities to acceptable working and hygienic standards; did not ensure all doors had working closing devices and expanding smoke strips to stop the spread of fire and smoke; had wedged fire doors open so they could not automatically close and protect people in the event of a fire; not maintained external doors to a robust, safe and secure standard; and not maintained external wooden window sills and frames to a robust and safe standard.
We found that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard and that staff had received appropriate professional development and support.
We saw that the health and safety of people was promoted, reviewed and audited and the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.