You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The inspection took place on 23 and 24 May 2017 and the first day of the inspection was unannounced. We told the registered manager that we would be coming back the following day. At our previous inspection on 14 and 18 August 2015 we found the provider was in breach of two regulations relating to safe care and treatment and notifications, and the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’.

Nonoy Capina is a residential care home that provides support for five adults with learning disabilities. The home is privately owned and is located in a residential area. At the time of our inspection four people were living in the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 received care and support from staff who had worked with them for a long period of time and were aware of how to meet their needs.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff, including the registered manager, throughout the inspection. People and their relatives told us staff were kind and compassionate and knew how to provide the care and support they required. All staff showed concern for people’s health and welfare in a caring and compassionate manner.

People were spoken with and treated in a respectful and kind way and staff respected their privacy and dignity, and promoted their independence.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe and staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from abuse. All staff had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse and had a good understanding of how to identify and report any concerns. Staff were confident that any concerns would be investigated and dealt with.

People’s risks were managed and care plans contained appropriate risk assessments with input from health and social care professionals, which were updated regularly when people’s needs changed. Staff worked closely with people and had a detailed understanding of how they could be aware and meet their needs.

People who required support with their medicines received them safely from staff who had completed training in the safe handling and administration of medicines. Staff completed appropriate records when they administered medicines and these were checked by staff and audited by the pharmacy to minimise medicines errors.

The service had a robust recruitment process and staff had the necessary checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people using the service. Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Staff members were knowledgeable about their jobs as they had worked with people for over 15 years. They completed training on an annual basis to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. Staff received regular supervision from management and told us they felt supported and were happy with their input during the supervision they received.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider had worked closely with the relevant health and social care professionals to ensure people’s liberty was not restricted in any way.

Staff were aware of the importance of asking people for consent and the need to have best interests meetings in relation to decisions where people did not have the capacity to consent.

People had regular access to healthcare services and staff made appropriate referrals if people’s needs changed. Staff worked closely with other health and social care professionals, such as the community learning disability team, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists .

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was safe.

Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise and report any signs of abuse and protect people from harm.

Risk management plans were in place to identify the areas of risk and to reduce the likelihood of people coming to harm. They were reviewed regularly and additional reviews were conducted if any significant changes occurred.

The provider took appropriate steps to ensure robust staff recruitment procedures were followed and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

People received their medicines safely. Medicines were administered and recorded by staff who had completed relevant medicines training.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were aware of people’s health and well-being and responded if their needs changed. People were supported to have regular access to healthcare services and other health and social care professionals, such as GPs, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists.

People received care and support that met their needs. Staff received the training and supervision they needed to meet people’s needs and were knowledgeable about their jobs.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to have a balanced diet, which took into account their preferences as well as medical and cultural needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was caring.

Staff had worked with people for a long time and had developed caring and compassionate relationships with them.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and kindness, respected their privacy and promoted their dignity and independence.

People, and their relatives where applicable, were informed about their health and well-being and were actively involved in decisions about their care and support, in accordance with people’s own wishes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was responsive.

Care records were detailed and personalised to meet people’s individual needs so staff knew how people liked to be supported.

People were involved in discussing activities and day trips that were made available to them. People were supported to access a day centre on a regular basis.

The provider gave people and relatives the opportunity to give feedback about the care and treatment they received. People and their relatives knew how to make complaints and said they would feel comfortable doing so should the need arise.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 June 2017

The service was well-led.

People and their relatives were happy with the service. The registered manager had an active presence in the home and was approachable.

Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and felt they were supported to carry out their responsibilities.

The service promoted a positive culture which led to a positive working environment for people and staff.

There were regular audits and meetings to monitor the quality of the service and identify any concerns. Any concerns identified were documented, discussed and acted upon.