Archived: Consensa Care Limited - Third Avenue

Updated 23 December 2014

This inspection was carried out by one inspector. Before the site visit we looked at information submitted to us by the provider which included  notifications of any significant events, details of safeguarding allegations and reviewed the findings of our previous inspection which took place over two days on the 6 and 13 December 2013. The provider also submitted to us a Provider Information Return. This is information we have asked the provider to submit to us about how well the service was meeting the needs of people and areas they have identified as in need of improvement. We also received information about the service from relevant health and social care professionals. This included local social services, a GP service and a service that provided advocacy services to people that lived at the home.

During the course of the inspection we spoke with four people who used the service, four staff including the manager and three support workers and we spoke with the area manager by telephone. We observed care practices in the home and reviewed various records which included three care plans, minutes of staff and residents meetings, staff training records, shift handover records, menu plans and health and safety records.

Updated 23 December 2014

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, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. 

At the previous inspection of this service in December 2013 we found a breach with regulations because the service did not have effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of care provided. We found this breach to be met during the course of this inspection. This inspection was unannounced.

The service is divided into two separate houses next to each other. One home is for up to four adults with mental health needs and associated brain injuries. People in that home require minimal staff support and are able to access the community independently. The other home is for up to seven adults with learning disabilities, and specialises in providing support to people with challenging behaviours and/or autism. At the time of our visit this home had three vacancies.

People told us they were happy with the care and support provided. We found that systems were in place to help keep people safe. For example, staff had a good understanding of issues related to safeguarding vulnerable adults. Where people had behaviour that challenges clear guidelines were in place and we saw staff following these guidelines. However, we did have concerns that the shift patterns that staff worked potentially put people at risk as staff reported they felt very tired sometimes at work. If staff are too tired to carry out their required duties then this could potentially affect the quality and safety of care provided to people.

We found that the home was responsive to people’s needs and people were able to make choices over their daily lives. Where there was a need for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisation it had been implemented appropriately. People who were subject to a DoLS authorisation were supported by staff to access the community in line with their assessed needs and stated wishes. DoLS is law protecting people where the state has decided their liberty needs to be deprived in their own best interests.

Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities and we observed staff interacting with people in a respectful and caring manner. Staff told us they had undertaken various training courses such as first aid and the safe administration of medication. However, the service had highlighted the need for more specialist training for example about working with people with autism.

Although the service had a registered manager in place that individual had no responsibility for the day to day running of the home. They were in day to day control of the service in the past, but for more than a year they have worked as the manager of another location that is operated by the same provider. The service does have a manager in place that is in day to day charge of the home, but they are not registered with the Care Quality Commission. This is the person we are referring to throughout this report when we refer to the ‘manager’. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Staff and people that used the service told us they found the manager to be approachable and accessible and we observed an open and relaxed atmosphere in the home. Quality assurance systems were in place which included seeking the views of people that used the service. It was however noted that not all health and safety checks had been carried out thoroughly.

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, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. 

At the previous inspection of this service in December 2013 we found a breach with regulations because the service did not have effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of care provided. We found this breach to be met during the course of this inspection. This inspection was unannounced.

The service is divided into two separate houses next to each other. One home is for up to four adults with mental health needs and associated brain injuries. People in that home require minimal staff support and are able to access the community independently. The other home is for up to seven adults with learning disabilities, and specialises in providing support to people with challenging behaviours and/or autism. At the time of our visit this home had three vacancies.

People told us they were happy with the care and support provided. We found that systems were in place to help keep people safe. For example, staff had a good understanding of issues related to safeguarding vulnerable adults. Where people had behaviour that challenges clear guidelines were in place and we saw staff following these guidelines. However, we did have concerns that the shift patterns that staff worked potentially put people at risk as staff reported they felt very tired sometimes at work. If staff are too tired to carry out their required duties then this could potentially affect the quality and safety of care provided to people.

We found that the home was responsive to people’s needs and people were able to make choices over their daily lives. Where there was a need for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisation it had been implemented appropriately. People who were subject to a DoLS authorisation were supported by staff to access the community in line with their assessed needs and stated wishes. DoLS is law protecting people where the state has decided their liberty needs to be deprived in their own best interests.

Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities and we observed staff interacting with people in a respectful and caring manner. Staff told us they had undertaken various training courses such as first aid and the safe administration of medication. However, the service had highlighted the need for more specialist training for example about working with people with autism.

Although the service had a registered manager in place that individual had no responsibility for the day to day running of the home. They were in day to day control of the service in the past, but for more than a year they have worked as the manager of another location that is operated by the same provider. The service does have a manager in place that is in day to day charge of the home, but they are not registered with the Care Quality Commission. This is the person we are referring to throughout this report when we refer to the ‘manager’. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Staff and people that used the service told us they found the manager to be approachable and accessible and we observed an open and relaxed atmosphere in the home. Quality assurance systems were in place which included seeking the views of people that used the service. It was however noted that not all health and safety checks had been carried out thoroughly.