You are here

The S.T.A.R. Foundation Inadequate

We are carrying out a review of quality at The S.T.A.R. Foundation. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 11 November 2020

About the service

The S.T.A.R. Foundation, known locally at Astrum House is a specialist residential and nursing home providing support for up to 60 people. At the time of our inspection there were 53 people using the service. The service provides support for people with a learning disability, people with autistic spectrum disorder, mental health and people with a physical disability. Some people using the service were living with dementia. The home is separated into three units known as block A, B and C. Each block is then further separated in to five units of four people, these areas are known as pods.

The service had not been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. A small number of people living at the service had a learning disability and/or autism and did not always receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them. The outcomes for people using the service did not always reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support did not always focus on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We identified a closed culture, people did not have their human rights upheld, protected characteristics were not recognised or respected and equality was not promoted.

The provide had systems in place to monitor the quality of service. However, these were not effective or robust and did not always identify areas of improvement. Some relatives we spoke with felt communication was poor. There was no evidence that feedback from people who used the service and their relatives had been gathered or acted on.

Risks associated with people’s care were identified but were not managed in a way that kept people safe.

Staff were not always deployed effectively to ensure people’s needs were met. Staff had not consistently received specific specialist training to meet people’s needs. One to one support was not always provided in line with people’s identified needs. Staff did not receive competency checks on their performance and abilities to ensure they carried out their roles and responsibilities safely.

The provider had a recruitment process in place which showed staff were recruited safely. However, monitoring of poor performance needed improving.

The provider had systems in place to safeguard people from the risks associated with abuse. Staff had received training in this area and were knowledgeable about how to safeguard people. However, following our inspection, we referred five safeguarding concerns to the Local Authority.

We identified shortfalls in the way people’s medicines were managed.

People were not always protected by the risk and spread of infection.

Staff were kind in their response to people, however their approach was not always person-centred and at times was task orientated. Staff did not always respect people’s privacy and dignity.

There was a lack of working together with external agencies to deliver effective care and treatment and support people’s access to healthcare services. This meant their needs were not being met and had a negative impact on people’s well-being and mental health.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice.

There was lack of evidence to show that people were involved in decisions about their care, support and treatment.

Most people we spoke with told us the food was nice. However, from observations it was not clear that people had choices, as meals came to the units pre plated. We identified weight loss, ther

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 11 November 2020

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Inadequate

Updated 11 November 2020

The service was not effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Inadequate

Updated 11 November 2020

The service was not caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Inadequate

Updated 11 November 2020

The service was not responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 11 November 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.