You are here

Shenehom Housing Association Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 May 2014
Date of Publication: 26 June 2014
Inspection Report published 26 June 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 23 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team was made up of an inspector who answered our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

During our visit we saw that the home safeguarding procedures were robust, staff were trained in how to use them and they were appropriately used. Staff understood how to safeguard people individually and as a group. Areas of concern including specific circumstances were recorded in the four support plans we looked at. People told us that they felt safe living at the home and we also saw that staff treated them with dignity and respect.

The home had systems that enabled the manager and staff to learn from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. These events were regularly reviewed and discussed during staff meetings, 1-2-1 supervision sessions and this reduced the risks to people and helped the home to improve.

There were policies and procedures that appropriate staff understood and used in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Training was provided for relevant staff to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. There were no current applications submitted. This meant that people were safeguarded.

We toured the home and saw it was safe, clean and hygienic with well maintained equipment that was regularly serviced. This meant people were not put at unnecessary risk.

The staff rotas took people�s care needs into account when decisions were made regarding how many staff were required on duty, their qualifications, skills and experience. This ensured that people�s needs were met.

No staff were currently subject to disciplinary action and policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People had access to an advocacy service as required. This meant that people could access additional support.

The home assessed people�s support needs with them and those that wished to contributed to their support plans. Any individual specialist input was identified in the support plans as required. Some of the four support plans we examined contained evidence that people had contributed to them and they confirmed this when we spoke with them. People told us "If I wanted something it would be provided" and "I'm interested in activities and like the bingo, quizzes and the music group".

The layout of the service enabled people to move around freely and safely.

The visiting policy and visitors' book demonstrated that people were able to see their visitors in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by professional, knowledgeable and attentive staff. The staff were patient and gave people encouragement when supporting them. One person said, "Staff are very supportive�. People�s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs were recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with this information.

People using the service and staff completed an annual satisfaction survey and there was a suggestion box, although the manager said this was not utilised often. Where shortfalls or concerns were identified they were addressed by the home.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities in the community and at home. During our visit people went out for coffee and there was a computer training session taking place. We were told that there were a range of group activities that people could attend if they wished. People's support plans identified that they were enabled to be involved in activities within their local community and further afield such as holidays.

People said they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the manager and staff listened to people's needs, opinions and acted upon them. The service worked well with other agencies and community based services to ensure people received their care and support in a seamless way. This was demonstrated by the relationship the home had with the local authority 'Community Mental Health' and other teams and community based health services.

Appropriate notifications to the Care Quality Commission were made.