You are here

Archived: No 31 First Row

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 June 2014
Date of Publication: 7 August 2014
Inspection Report published 07 August 2014 PDF | 87.74 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 10 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that the person received.

Reasons for our judgement

The provider had in place systems to monitor the quality of the service that the person received. The person and their relatives were consulted about the service by means of questionnaires. We looked at the questionnaires and found the individual had responded positively about the care and support provided. We spoke to the person who said, “I am involved and consulted about how the house runs. I am able to make my views known and staff respect them.”

We saw that there were systems for regular monitoring of the person’s care records, risks and medicines. While the system for monitoring care records had not yet started there were no concerns identified with medicines.

The manager met regularly with the provider’s representative to report on incidents, complaints, safeguarding referrals and staffing issues. No safeguarding referrals had been made and no complaints had been received.

The manager said there was a small team who worked at this house and communication was good. He indicated all the team members were able to contribute their views and make suggestions for improvements. We were told and we saw evidence to confirm staff had regular supervision at which they regularly discussed issues about development of the service.