You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Renaissance Residential Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The inspection took place on 4 and 5 October 2016 and was unannounced. Renaissance Residential Home provides care and accommodation for up to 17 people. On the day of the inspection 15 people were living in the home. Renaissance Residential Home provides care for people with a learning disability.

Two registered managers managed the service; one of which was also the registered provider and delegated certain management responsibilities to the other 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 requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe using the service. There were risk assessments in place to identify any risks related to people’s care and support needs. People received support to maintain their health and any referrals to healthcare professionals were made in a timely fashion. Staff knew how to keep people safe understood the risks relating to people’s health needs, however, these were not always included in people’s risk assessments. When people sometimes felt anxious, staff supported people to feel better but how they did this was not included in guidance for staff to ensure consistency for the person. The registered provider confirmed these would be put in place as soon as possible.

Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse and were confident any allegations would be taken seriously and investigated to help ensure people were protected. People told us staff provided information about staying safe and supported them to keep safe.

Some people were supported with their medicines. Staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines but had not received regular competency assessments which meant they may not be working in line with best practice. Staff understood people’s needs in relation to their medicines but there was no information recorded for medicines that were prescribed to be taken, ‘as required’, this meant there may be a risk of staff administering medicines incorrectly. The registered provider told us they would ensure these were put in place.

The recruitment process of new staff was robust. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. People received support from staff who knew them well and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and the support provided. Comments included, “You can’t fault them. There’s nothing they could do better.”

Staff and the registered provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) but no-one living at the service was currently assesses as lacking capacity.

There was a positive culture within the service. The registered provider had clear values about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were shared by the whole staff team. The registered provider and staff described trying to create a ‘family home’ for people, and people and relatives felt this had been achieved.

There was a management structure in the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The registered provider and registered manager were supported by other senior staff who had designated management responsibilities. People told us they knew who to speak to and any changes or concerns were dealt with swiftly and efficiently.

The registered manager and registered provider monitored the quality of the service by regularly speaking with people to ensure they were happy with the service they received. However, audits that were in place to identify any improvements that could be made to the service had not been carried out effectively, so few actions had been taken as a result. The registere

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was not always safe.

People had risk assessments in place to mitigate risks associated with living at the service. Staff understood people's risks related to their health and social care needs and supported them to be as safe as possible, but these were not always recorded in risk assessments. This meant staff may not always be working in a consistent way which reflected best practice.

People received their medicines at the right time, however details about people’s needs in relation to their medicines was not always accurately completed. This meant it was possible people’s medicines may not be administered correctly. Staff had been trained in administering medicines but had not received regular competency assessments. This meant staff may not always be working in line with best practice.

When people experienced anxiety, staff knew how to support them but their care plans did not include detail about how best to do this. This meant staff may not all have been supporting the person in a consistent way.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs safely. Staff were recruited safely.

People were protected by staff who could identify abuse and who would act to protect people.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was effective. People received support from staff who knew them well and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

People’s healthcare needs were met by staff who supported people to contact the relevant professional.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and promoted choice and independence whenever possible.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was caring.

People were looked after by staff who treated them with kindness and respect. People spoke highly of staff.

Staff spoke about the people they were looking after with fondness.

People felt in control of their care and staff listened to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was responsive.

Care records were written to reflect people’s individual likes and dislikes and were regularly reviewed and updated.

People were involved in the planning of their care and their views and wishes were listened to and acted on.

People took part in a range of activities which reflected their interests and wishes.

People knew how to make a complaint and raise any concerns. The service took these issues seriously and acted on them in a timely and appropriate manner.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was well led.

There was a positive culture in the service and staff spoke of providing a family home for people. This reflected the ethos of the registered provider.

People’s feedback about the service was sought and their views were valued and acted upon.

Staff were motivated and inspired to develop and provide quality care.