You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Cygnet House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 March 2017

Our inspection was announced. It took place over two dates 20 February and 1 March 2017.

At our previous inspection we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. We found however, that the ‘Well-led’ section ‘Required Improvement’ as we found that records were not concise regarding the receipt people’s medicines when they arrived at the service for their stay. There was no monitoring of the temperature of the cupboard where medicines were stored and that no record of the support provided to people each day or the activities the people engaged in were made. This inspection we found that those issues had been/or were in the process of being addressed.

The provider is registered to deliver personal care. People lived with needs relating to their learning disability or an associated condition. At the time of our inspection 19 people used the service. The personal care provided was within the providers own home on a ‘respite basis’. Respite means that people are supported in a care environment rather than by family or friends for short periods of time. People used the service for varied amounts of time. Some people used it a few times a year; others regularly for evening and overnight support, and some people used the service whilst their main carer went on holiday. The remainder of the time people lived with their families in the community. The providers ran the service. No other staff were needed or employed at the time of our inspection.

One of the two providers was also the 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 providers had policies in place and had received training on procedures they should follow to ensure that any risk of harm and/or abuse was prevented. They had undertaken risk assessments to maintain the safety of the people who used the service. The provider’s had been trained to manage medicines safely. Medicines were given to people as they had been prescribed. The providers ran the service and people’s needs were met so no additional staff were required.

The providers had received the training they required to give them the knowledge they needed to support the people in their care. The providers understood that people must receive care in line with their best interests and would not unlawfully restrict any person. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care. If they were unable to, their relatives were involved in how their care was planned and delivered. The providers supported people appropriately with their nutritional needs. Meal options were offered to ensure that people’s food and drink preferences were catered for.

People and their relatives told us that both providers were kind and caring. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted and maintained.

The providers were available to meet people’s individual needs. People were offered and enabled to engage in recreational activities that they enjoyed and met their preferred needs. People were supported to continue to go to their colleges or other community facilities whilst using the service. Complaints systems were in place for people and their relatives to raise their concerns or complaints if they had the need to.

All people and their relatives were very satisfied with the care and support given. They complimented both providers on all aspects of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 March 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were given to people as they had been prescribed.

The providers time and input was sufficient to meet people’s needs.

Checks had been undertaken on both providers to ensure that they were suitable and safe to deliver care and support.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 March 2017

The service was effective.

The service provided was effective and met people’s needs.

Both providers had the knowledge they needed to meets people’s needs in the way that they preferred.

People were provided with the food and drink that they preferred.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 March 2017

The service was caring.

People and their relatives described the providers as being kind and caring.

People’s dignity, privacy and independence were promoted and maintained.

Relatives could visit when they wanted to and could ring and speak with their family member at any time.

The service was caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 March 2017

The service was responsive.

Relatives felt that the service provided met their family member’s needs.

The providers ensured that people continued to attend their colleges and day centres to maintain their routines.

A complaints system was in place if people or their relatives had the need to raise a concern.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 March 2017

The service was well-led.

Record keeping had been introduced to describe how people spent their time at the service or to evidence the support that had been provided.

The provider’s had communicated with relatives about the need to confirm precisely the medicines people would need to be supported with during their respite stay.

There was a leadership structure in place that relatives understood. Relatives had complete trust and confidence in the provider’s and the service they delivered.