Archived: Laurel House

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We asked one person whether they felt safe living at the home and they told us that they did. Individual risk assessments were in place to protect people living at the home from identified sources of harm.

However we found that people were placed at risk due to very poor standards of cleanliness in their own rooms and a lack of maintenance to the home environment. No infection control or health and safety audits had been undertaken for the home to identify the issues that we found. These issues are being followed up and we will report on any action when it is complete.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with one person who told us that they were satisfied with the support they received at the home.

Staff received supervision sessions from the deputy manager however there had been no staff training provided within the last year.Staff training development needs were not met to ensure that people received support from competent staff.

We also found there had been insufficient support from staff for people with their personal grooming, keeping their rooms clean and motivation to undertake activities. These issues are being followed up and we will report on any action when it is complete.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with one person living at the home and they told us 'It's OK here.' Staff we spoke with showed that they understood the needs and preferences of individual people they supported. As part of their key working role staff told us that they encouraged people to engage with community services.

We observed respectful and sensitive interactions between staff and people living at the home. We were shown quality assurance monitoring forms which had been completed by people using the service. These were positive about the care provided.

Is the service responsive?

People had their individual needs assessed and had a care plan which reflected their individual needs. However we found that care plans did not address all relevant health conditions for which people needed support. We also found that information provided in people's care records did not appear to be accurate with regard to support provided with cleaning their bedrooms. Therefore people could not be assured that their changing needs would be responded to appropriately. These issues are being followed up and we will report on any action when it is complete.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that there was a system for dealing with complaints and people could therefore be assured that complaints were acted upon.

Staff members we spoke with had not been paid their full salary and did not have contact details for the director of Msasa Care Ltd. The manager had not been working in the home in recent months, and no supervision was provided for the home's deputy manager. There were no quality assurance audits undertaken by the provider to determine the quality of care provision within the home. The provider also failed to notify CQC of three changes to the sole director of Msasa Care Ltd. People were not supported by a well led and safely managed service. These issues are being followed up and we will report on any action when it is complete.