You are here

Archived: Imber House Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 23 March 2016

Imber House is a care home providing care and support to a maximum of five people living with a learning disability. At the time of our visit there were five people using the service.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 December 2015.

The service is not required to have a registered manager, as the provider is in day to day running of the service. 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 requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about the service is run.

People told us they felt safe living in the service, People's relatives and health professionals involved in their care felt the service was safe. There were clear plans in place to reduce the risks of people coming to harm. Staff and the provider understood their role in supporting people to keep safe.

People’s relatives told us, and our observations confirmed that there were enough suitably qualified, trained and supported staff to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they received the training they needed to carry out their role effectively, and that they were supported to do their job.

There was a robust recruitment procedure in place to ensure that prospective staff members had the skills, qualifications and background to support people.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. The provider was able to identify errors in medicine administration, but improvements are required to ensure that the provider is able to evidence this with records.

The service had not made the appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referrals for people using the service following changes in legislation. However, people using the service were supported to live their lives in the way they wished and make important decisions independently.

People were supported to live full and active lives, and engage in meaningful activity within the service and out in the community.

People and their representatives were aware of the support they should receive from staff. However, improvements were required with regard to how people are involved in the planning of their support in the future, and how their views are reflected in their care records.

Improvements are required to ensure that the provider can evidence that there is a robust quality assurance system in place capable of identifying shortfalls.

There was an open culture at the service. People's representatives said they felt able to make suggestions and give feedback. However, improvements were required in order to put in place a formal system for obtaining the views of people using the service, relatives and other relevant persons such as healthcare professionals. Staff told us they felt confident in raising concerns or making suggestions to their manager.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to complain if they were unhappy.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 March 2016

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Robust recruitment procedures were in place.

People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

Risks to people’s safety were planned for, monitored and well managed by the service. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and understood the safeguarding process in place at the service.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 23 March 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

Staff received the training and support they required to carry out their role effectively.

People had access to a choice of nutritious food and drink which met their needs.

Consent was obtained appropriately. However, improvements were required to ensure that the service complied with changes to legislation around the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 March 2016

The service was caring.

People told us the staff were caring and showed them kindness and understanding.

Staff demonstrated they knew people well and had formed close bonds with people.

Improvements were required to ensure that people are actively involved in the planning of their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 March 2016

The service was responsive.

People received support which was planned and delivered in line with their personalised care plans.

People were encouraged and supported to make complaints. Improvements are required with regard to how people's feedback on the service is obtained and used to inform changes to the service.

People were supported to be independent and engage in meaningful activity and stimulation.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 23 March 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

Improvements are required to ensure that the provider has in place a robust and recorded quality assurance system.

Improvements are required in how the views of people, their representatives and staff are used in the on-going development of the service.