You are here

Archived: Keynsham Mencap Family Home Limited Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 16 January 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 8, 12 May 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and 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.

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us that staff treated them well. People were supported by staff who were aware of the risks to people's safety and health and staff knew how to support them in a safe way.

People were protected from the risks associated with medicines. Medicines held by the home were stored safely and staff provided good support for people to take their medicines when they needed them.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents and complaints. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to improve.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Staff were thoroughly checked before they were able to work in the home. This helped to ensure that only people with the right skills and background provided support to people.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the support they received and that their needs were met. It was clear from observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's support needs. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living in the home.

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and respectful staff. People told us they liked living at the home and staff provided the support they needed. Comments included, �very good place to live�, �staff are kind and caring� and �I like it here�. We saw that staff showed patience and compassion when supporting people. People told us that they could do the things they enjoyed. Our observations confirmed this. Staff told us they were able to provide the support that people needed.

The views of people who use the service were obtained each month, through a group meeting. The meeting was chaired by an independent advocate, who produced a record of the meeting and the feedback people had provided. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were reviewed regularly and in response to any changing needs. We saw information in people�s records which indicated they had been consulted over the support they received. This meant that information about people�s preferences were gathered and used to plan support to meet their specific needs. People were supported to maintain relationships with people that were important to them.

The service worked well with health and social care professionals and other services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

Is the service well led?

The service had a quality assurance system and records we saw showed that the manager monitored people's needs and the support provided. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance processes in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.

Inspection carried out on 19 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us about their activities in the local community and the support they received in different areas of their lives. We found that independence was being promoted and staff respected people�s rights. People also spent time together and shared some of the household tasks. One person who used the service said �it�s like a family home, we all help each other�.

People told us about meetings in the home when they could talk about things together and express their views. An advocate was present to support people in the meetings. This enabled people to raise issues with somebody who was independent of the service if they wished to.

We found that people received the help they needed with medicines and with their healthcare. Staff supported people in these areas, whilst also encouraging people to manage things by themselves when it was safe to do so.

People told us that they liked the improvements that had been made to some facilities in the home. One person who used the service described their new bathroom as �very posh�. We found that standards in the home were being regularly checked to ensure that the people benefited from a service that was safe and met their needs.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We found that changes had been made to the home's system for quality assurance. The information we received showed that a more thorough approach was being taken to checking and improving the home environment. As a result, this would be safer for the people who used the service.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)