You are here

Cana Gardens Residential Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 1 May 2019

The home was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ at our last full comprehensive inspection in December 2017. We visited again in June 2018 and rated the home ‘Inadequate’ and we placed the home in special measures. The overall rating from this inspection is 'Requires Improvement’, however it remains rated as ‘Inadequate’ in well led and the service therefore remains in ‘special measures’. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider’s registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

About the service:

Cana Gardens is residential care home that was providing residential care for 8 people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. There are currently two people living in the home, neither of whom could comment on the quality of care and support. We spoke with the parents of both people to gain an insight about how they felt care and support was arranged. There is a management team made up of the registered manager, consultant manager and another manager. All three have specific management duties and oversight of the home.

The outcomes for people did not fully reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support for the following reasons, lack of choice and control, limited independence and limited inclusion.

People’s experience of using this service:

The management team had completed audits to support quality checks, however for some areas, these had not identified where improvements needed to be made. This was linked to inconsistent safety practices. Because of this there were repeated breaches in Safe and Well Led.

Medicine administration had improved, and peoples care had some elements of safe practice.

Relatives of people living in the home gave mixed opinions if their relation was cared for safely, and if the home’s staff communicated with them.

The management and staff team did not fully comply with the MCA principles, or compliant with Deprivation of Liberty Standards (DoLS) authorisations or complied with positive conditions. That meant people were not supported to continue their transition to become more independent from staff assistance. Meaningful activities related to DoLS conditions were not well planned or regularly undertaken, which also detracted from people’s life experiences.

Staff training was variable, where care staff were trained but the management teams training was not being updated.

People were offered a healthy diet that met their cultural requirements but they did not always make healthy food choices.

Neither the people in the home or their relatives were supported to express their views about the care that the people living in the home preferred.

People experienced a positive relationship with staff and people’s relatives said their relations were well cared for and that staff were kind to them.

Auditing and governance continued to f

Inspection report


Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 1 May 2019

The service was not always safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Inspection report


Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 1 May 2019

The service was not always effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Inspection report


Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 1 May 2019

The service was not always caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Inspection report


Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 1 May 2019

The service was not always responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Inspection report


Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 1 May 2019

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.

Inspection report