You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

This first comprehensive inspection of the service took place on 7 September 2017 and was unannounced. St Matthews Unit provides care for up to 58 people with complex mental health needs and people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 57 people were using the service.

An unannounced quality inspection of St Matthews Unit was carried out on 30 and 31 August 2016 by the Mental Health Act (MHA). Since the inspection, the regulated activity assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 has been removed from the provider’s registration and the service had ceased to be a hospital.

A registered manager was 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.

Risk assessments addressed specific areas individual to each person using the service. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to raise any concerns if they suspected or witnessed ill treatment or poor practice.

The Recruitment systems were robust to make sure the right staff were recruited to keep people safe. There was enough competent staff available with the right mix of skills to meet the needs of people using the service. Systems were in place for the ordering, receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

Staff received training that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities, ensuring they had the skills and knowledge required to support people effectively. Capacity assessments had been carried out for all people using the service, the assessments identified where people required help to make decisions, and where they lacked the mental capacity to make particular decisions. Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) applications had been submitted to the local authority as required.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and have access to healthcare services in response to ill health and had routine health checks. People had developed positive relationships with the staff. The staff protected people's privacy and dignity and advocacy services were available for people if required.

Detailed care plans in place, they contained information about people’s needs and aspirations and short term goals. People were encouraged to develop their independence and were supported to follow their interests and hobbies. The staff knew how to support people when they became anxious through using individual coping strategies. Systems were in place to receive and take appropriate action to address any complaints.

Established quality assurance systems were being used to monitor the service to continually drive improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was safe.

Risk assessments addressed specific areas individual to each person using the service.

Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse.

The Recruitment systems were robust to make sure the right staff were recruited to keep people safe.

There was enough competent staff available with the right mix of skills to meet the needs of people using the service.

Systems were in place for the ordering, receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities.

Capacity assessments had been carried out for all people using the service, the assessments identified where people required help to make decisions, and where they lacked the mental capacity to make particular decisions.

Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) applications had been submitted to the local authority as required and staff interventions followed the least restrictive practice.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and have access to healthcare services.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was caring.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People had developed positive caring relationships with staff.

People’s privacy and dignity was promoted and respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans contained sufficient information about people’s needs and aspirations and short term goals.

People were encouraged to maintain and develop their independence and supported to follow their interests and hobbies.

Systems were in place to receive and take action in response to complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was well-led.

The style of management was open and transparent, putting people at the heart of the service.

Staff knew how to question practice and system were in place to support staff to whistleblowing.

Quality assurance systems were being used to continually monitor and improve the service.