Archived: Independent Care (Portsmouth) Limited - 64 Farlington Road

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The person being supported felt safe with the home’s staff. They had no concerns about their safety. There were policies and procedures in place regarding the safeguarding of adults and staff knew what action to take if they thought anyone was at risk of potential harm. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care records contained risk assessments to manage them.

The person was supported to take their medicines as directed by their GP. Records showed that there were appropriate arrangements for obtaining, storing and disposing of medicines.

Thorough recruitment processes were in place for newly appointed staff to check they were suitable to work with people. Staffing numbers were maintained at a level to meet the person's needs safely. Observations showed sufficient staff were employed.

Staff provided support to help ensure meals were balanced and encouraged healthy choices.

Staff were aware of the persons health needs and knew how to respond if they observed a change in their well-being. The home was well supported by a range of health care professionals.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. The provider had suitable arrangements in place to establish, and act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005

Care plans informed staff of the support the person needed. Staff received training to help them meet the person’s needs. Staff received an induction and regular supervision took place. The person using the service said staff were knowledgeable about their care needs.

Privacy and dignity was respected. Staff had a caring attitude. We observed staff smiling and laughing with the person being supported. There was a good rapport with staff.

The registered manager operated an open door policy and welcomed feedback on any aspect of the service. There was a stable staff team who said that communication in the home was good and they always felt able to make suggestions. They confirmed management were open and approachable.

There was a clear complaints policy and people knew how to make a complaint if necessary.

The provider had a policy and procedure for quality assurance. The registered manager worked alongside staff and told us they all worked together as a team.

Weekly and monthly checks were carried out to monitor the quality of the service provided. The person being supported and staff were able to influence the running of the service and make comments and suggestions about any changes. Regular meetings with staff and the person who used the service took place. These meetings enabled the registered manager to monitor if needs were being met.

During our visit we spoke with the one person currently living at the home. We also spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and one member of staff.

We used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

The person currently living at the home told us they had no concerns about the support they received. They said they were happy at the home and felt safe and secure.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. All staff had received training in adult protection procedures.

We saw care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. The care plan we looked at had risk assessments in place to help minimise any risk that had been identified.

CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The manager and deputy had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and their responsibilities in this area.

Is the service effective?

We saw there were care and support plans in place. Support plans explained what the person could do for themself and what support they needed from staff. Staff told us the care and support plan gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support the person required.

We observed staff supported people appropriately. The staff member we spoke with was aware of the needs of the person they supported and how they wanted their care to be delivered. We saw staff offered advice and support and people were enabled to make their own choices and decisions.

Is the service caring?

The person we spoke with told us they were very happy with the way the staff interacted with them and said they were treated well be staff.

We observed staff spoke appropriately and they used the persons preferred form of address; we saw that everyone got on well together.

Is the service responsive?

We saw there had been regular reviews of the persons care and support. The person was quite independent and was able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community. Staff told us they encouraged and supported the person to participate in activities to promote and maintain their well-being.

Is the service well led?

The home had a policy and procedure for quality assurance and an independent consultant carried out quality audits every six months and produced a report of their findings.

The manager and deputy told us they also carried out a range of weekly and monthly audits to ensure the home maintained a good standard of care and support.

The manager met with staff on a regular basis and staff told us they were able to contact the manager at any time for advice and support. Staff told us they received regular supervision and this gave them the opportunity to put forward their views on how the home was performing.

Records that we looked at evidenced that people were involved in choosing how and when they wanted their care and support. Care plans were personalised and detailed people's individual needs and preferences. There was information about how each person communicated. This meant staff understood how people expressed their needs and wishes about how they wanted to be supported with their care.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. These staff had appropriate training and supervision to undertake their roles. The manager confirmed that additional training was obtained to meet the needs of people using the service including dementia awareness, diabetes and challenging behaviour. Training was obtained through the local council and through other local providers.

Responses to the last questionnaire were positive for example, "I am happy with the way things are here - I wouldn't change anything. I can do what I want to do. I enjoy listening to the radio and going to the day centre".

We asked both people if they knew how to make a complaint. Neither person was sure about the complaints procedure. However they said that if they had any concerns they would speak to a member of staff.

We spoke with two members of staff who told us that they would support anyone to make a complaint if they so wished.

We spoke with the homes manager and with two members of staff. They said that they enjoyed working at the home and that everyone got on well together.