You are here

Archived: St George's House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 December 2016

This inspection was carried out on 14 November 2016 and was unannounced.

During our inspection on 12 August 2015 we found that systems in place for storing and administration of medicines were not appropriate to ensure safety and effectiveness. Support plans were not always personalised or reviewed regularly. Regular checks and audits of service quality and delivery were not being carried out effectively. The home was in breach of Regulation 9, 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

St George's House provides residential care for men and women with mental health issues. The service focuses on a three phase rehabilitation programme to support people to move to more independent accommodation. There were 23 beds, and 9 people were staying at the home during the inspection.

The service had a registered manager. 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 legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the associated regulations on how the service is run.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and had a good understanding in keeping people safe. They knew how to recognise abuse and who to report to and understood how to whistle blow. Whistleblowing is when someone who works for an employer raises a concern about harm, or a risk of harm, to people who use the service. There were policies and procedures in place for staff to follow.

There was enough staff to support people safely and to meet their individual needs.

Assessments were undertaken to assess any risks to people living at the home and steps were taken to minimise potential risks and to safeguard people from harm.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded correctly.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place that ensured staff were suitable to work with people, as staff had undergone the required checks before starting to work at the service.

Care plans were personalised to the people using the service. People were involved in planning of care and the care plans were then signed by people to ensure they were happy with the care and support listed on the care plan.

People had access to healthcare services such as the GP and dentists.

Systems were in place to ensure staff received regular supervision and appraisal. Staff received induction training and also received regular training to ensure that people were safe and the care provided was effective.

Complaints were managed appropriately and people were aware on how to make complaints.

People participated in a number of activities such as DVD nights, gardening and cooking workshops.

People's privacy and dignity was maintained. People were independent and we saw people moving freely around the house and were able to go to their rooms and outside without interruption.

Systems were in place for quality assurance. Regular audits were being carried out by the management team with actions listed for improvement.

Questionnaires were completed by people about the service. Outcomes were generally positive and covered important aspects on staff, safety, complaints and dignity.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 December 2016

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to identify abuse and report concerns or allegations of abuse.

Individual risk assessments had been prepared for people and measures put in place to minimise the risks of harm.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place to recruit staff and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Medicines were being managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 December 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received induction training and relevant mandatory and specialist training to help provide people with effective support.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Supervision and appraisals were being carried out.

People had access to healthcare professionals and services.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 December 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

People were treated with respect and helped to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and care plans were produced with the individual. These plans were tailored to meet each individual’s requirement and were reviewed on a regular basis.

People were involved in activities.

The provider had a complaints procedure and complaints were managed appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 December 2016

The service was well-led.

Staff told us that the manager was supportive and approachable.

There were appropriate systems in place to monitor the service and make any required changes. Regular audits had been undertaken by the management team.

The service sought feedback from people through meetings and surveys.