You are here

St Cuthberts House Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at St Cuthberts House. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 18 May 2018

The inspection took place on 27 February and 7 March 2018. The first day of inspection was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we would be coming.

St Cuthberts House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. St Cuthberts House provides care and support for up to 28 people who have enduring mental health issues. At the time of the inspection there were 26 people living there. It currently has an all-male client group.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

We previously inspected St Cuthberts House in September 2015, at which time the service was meeting all regulatory standards and was rated ‘Good’.

At this inspection we found the service had deteriorated to Requires Improvement.

At this inspection we found that there was a breach of Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. This related to the Registered Manager failing to notify the Care Quality Commission of incidents regarding abuse and a receipt of a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisation.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff had completed training in safeguarding people and the registered manager actively raised any safeguarding concerns with the local authority.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and managed. Environmental risk assessments were also in place.

People commented on an ongoing issue with communal toilets and them being left in an unclean manner. We have made a recommendation about the maintenance and cleanliness of communal toilets in the home.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff continued to be recruited in a safe way with all necessary checks carried out prior to their employment.

People continued to receive their medicines in a timely way and in line with prescribed instructions. Staff had their competencies checked regularly and medicines audits were completed by the registered manager.

Staff received up to date training, regular supervisions and an annual appraisal to support them in their roles.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to access a range of health professionals and information of healthcare intervention was included in care records.

People told us the service was caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect when supporting them with daily tasks.

People had access to advocacy services if they wished to receive support. Some people had active local advocacy services or Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) involved in decision making relating to specific aspects of their care.

People’s physical, mental and social needs were assessed prior to them moving into the home. Care plans were personalised, reviewed regularly and included people’s personal preferences.

There was a range of activities available for people to enjoy in the home. People were also supported, where necessary, to access activities in the local community including going to a local club, library and shopping.

There were audit systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The views of people, relatives and staff were sought by the registered manager via annual questionnaires. Ther

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe living at the service. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and the registered manager actively raised safeguarding concerns.

Medicines were managed in a safe way.

Safe recruitment checks were carried out prior to new staff being appointed.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received up to date training, regular supervisions and an annual appraisal.

The Mental Capacity Act (2005) was followed appropriately and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were authorised where appropriate.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and maintain relationships which were important to them.

People had access to advocacy services.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed prior to them moving into the home.

Care plans were personalised and contained details to guide staff how to support people.

People knew how to make complaints and felt comfortable doing so. The service had a complaints procedure in place.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was not always well-led.

Some statutory notifications were not submitted to the Care Quality Commission.

Staff attended regular staff meetings to discuss different elements of the service.

There were audit systems in place to monitor to the quality of the service.