You are here

Archived: Keynsham Mencap Family Home Limited Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2016

This inspection took place on the 16 January and was unannounced. When the service was last inspected in March 2014 there were no breaches of the legal requirements identified.

Keynsham Mencap Family Home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to nine people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were eight people living at the service.

A registered manager was in post at the time of inspection. 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.

People were not cared for in a safe, clean and hygienic environment. The system and practices in place for infection control within the service did not provide adequate protection for people.

People’s rights were not being upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This is a legal framework to protect people who are unable to make certain decisions themselves. We saw no information in people’s support plans about mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS applications had not been applied for appropriately. These safeguards aim to protect people living in homes from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. The registered manager told us they were seeking advice from the local authority.

There were ineffective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. We have recommended that the provider reviews the effectiveness of their quality assurance and auditing processes.

Staff were supported to undertake training to enable them to fulfil the requirements of the role. We reviewed the training records which showed training was completed in essential matters to ensure staff and people at the home were safe. The staff supervision programme required up-dating.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. Specific dietary requirements such as diabetes were catered for. The food was served at the correct consistency, according to the person’s needs. Where necessary appropriate professional advice had been sought regarding the consistency of food the person should consume. We did note that most of the food people ate for dinner were frozen ready meals.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of abuse and knew the correct action to take if they were concerned about a person being at risk. Safe recruitment procedures ensured all pre-employment requirements were completed before new staff were appointed and commenced their employment.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because there were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Risks to people were assessed and where required a risk management plan was in place to support people manage an identified risk and keep the person safe.

People had their physical and mental health needs monitored. All care records we viewed showed people had access to healthcare professionals according to their specific needs.

People were encouraged to maintain contact with their family and were therefore not isolated from those people closest to them.

People received effective care from the staff that supported them. Staff were caring towards people and there was a good relationship between people and staff. People and their representatives were involved in the planning of their care and support. Staff demonstrated an in-depth understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they cared for.

Support provided to people met their needs. Supporting records highlighted personalised information about what was important to people and how to support them. People were involved in activities of their choice.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

People were not cared for in a safe, clean and hygienic environment.

Staff had training in safeguarding adults and felt confident in identifying and reporting signs of suspected abuse.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because there were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

People’s rights were not being upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff did not receive appropriate support through a regular supervision programme.

People’s healthcare needs were met and the service had obtained support and guidance where required.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 February 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were caring towards people and there was a good relationship between people and staff.

Staff were very knowledgeable about people’s different behaviours and specific needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 February 2016

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People received good care that was personal to them and staff assisted them with the things they made the choices to do.

Each person’s care plan included personal profiles which included what was important to the person and how best to support them.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2016

The service was not well-led.

Staff did not feel well supported by the registered manager.

There were inadequate processes in place to assess, monitor and improve quality and safety of the service.

People and their representatives were encouraged to provide their views and were actively involved in the decision-making process, such as the choice of their activities and their future goals.