Archived: Short Break Care

Updated 21 October 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 14 and 16 September 2015 and was announced. We gave the registered manager notice of our inspection as this is a small service and we needed to be sure staff would be available.

Before the inspection the registered manager completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the PIR and at all the information we had collected about the service. This included previous inspection reports and notifications the registered manager had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we spoke with all people living at the service. People were not able to give us details of what it was like to live at the home. However, they were able to tell us their views on what was happening at the times we spoke with them. We also spoke with the nominated individual, the registered manager, the deputy manager, a senior care worker and a care worker. We observed people and staff working together during the two days of our inspection.

We looked at two people's care plan and all medication administration records. We also looked at the recruitment files of the two staff employed since our last inspection, the staff rota and staff training records. We saw a number of documents relating to the management of the service. For example, utility safety certificates, equipment service records, health and safety check records, food safety checks and the concerns, complaints and compliments records. We looked round the building and grounds and checked the facilities available and medication storage.

Following the inspection we sought and received feedback from two relatives/representatives a consultant in old age psychiatry and two mental health practitioners.

Updated 21 October 2015

This inspection took place on 14 and 16 September 2015 and was announced. We gave the registered manager notice of our inspection as this is a small service and we needed to be sure staff would be available. We last inspected the service on 22 October 2013. At that inspection we found the service was compliant with all essential standards we inspected.

Short Break Care is a care home without nursing that provides a service to up to seven people living with dementia. The service has five beds allocated to long term placements and two beds open to people requiring short term respite breaks. The home is in the same building as the Woodley Age Concern day centre. However, it is self-contained and not accessible to those using the day centre. People living at the home, or staying at the home on a respite break, are able to use the day services provided at the day centre. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home on a permanent basis and two people staying on a short respite break.

The service had a registered manager who had been registered since 23 March 2015. 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 protected from the risks of abuse and from risks associated with their health and care provision. People were protected by robust recruitment processes. People could be confident that staff were checked for suitability before being allowed to work with them. There were sufficient numbers of staff on each shift to make sure people's needs were met.

People benefitted from staff who were well supervised and received training to ensure they could carry out their work safely and effectively

People's rights to make their own decisions were protected. Managers and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They were aware of their responsibilities related to the Act and ensured that any decisions made on behalf of people were made within the law and in their best interests.

People received appropriate health care support. People's health and well-being was assessed and measures put in place to ensure people's needs were met in an individualised way. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Staff showed skill when working with people and it was obvious they knew them well and people were treated with care and kindness. Staff were aware of people's abilities and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

People's wellbeing was protected and all interactions observed between staff and people living at the service were caring, friendly and respectful. People's rights to confidentiality were upheld and staff treated them with respect and dignity.

People received support that was individualised to their personal preferences and needs. Health professionals told us they thought the service provided personalised care that was responsive to people's needs.

The service offered specialised day care for people living with moderate to severe dementia, with daily activities including cooking, arts & crafts, picture reminiscing and games. On the days of our inspection people were engaged in fulfilling activities that were meaningful to them.

Relatives and representatives knew how to raise concerns and confirmed they were listened to and taken seriously if they did. Staff recognised early signs of concern or distress from people living at the service and took prompt and appropriate action to reassure people when needed.

People benefitted from living at a service that had an open and friendly culture. Relatives/representatives felt staff were happy working at the service. Health professionals felt the service demonstrated good management and leadership, delivered high quality care and worked well in partnership with them.