You are here

Archived: Sisserou Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 20 April 2016

The inspection took place on 4 and 8 March and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice as it is a small care home and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The service is a small care home for up to three people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection two people were living in the home. The home shares a staff team with another service run by the same provider in the local area. The service was last inspected in October 2013 when it was found to be compliant with the outcomes inspected.

The home did not have a registered manager in post, as the provider is an individual who is considered a 'registered person.' 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.

The home was not always applying the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had not received specific training in this area and did not fully understand the principles behind it.

Risk assessments were not robust and care plans lacked detail on how support was provided. The knowledge of the staff supporting people was not captured in the documentation. This was brought to the attention of the registered provider who updated care plans and risk assessments to a good standard.

Records of care delivered were brief and task focussed. This meant that the service was not routinely capturing all the information about how people received support. We have made a recommendation about record keeping.

People were supported by trained staff to receive their medicines, however, records of medicines administered were not always clear. We have made a recommendation about recording medicines.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed by the service. Staff had been recruited safely with appropriate checks on their backgrounds completed.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding adults and knew how to protect people from harm. People told us they felt safe.

Staff received regular supervision and ongoing training to support them to develop the skills and knowledge required for their role.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain a balanced diet. The service provided culturally appropriate food to meet people's needs and preferences.

People were supported to have their health needs met. Records showed people were supported to attend appointments with healthcare professionals when required. Any advice from healthcare professionals was shared so that staff knew how to support people to maintain their health.

Staff were caring and had built up strong relationships with people living in the home. Staff and people living in the home had a shared cultural heritage which meant that cultural and language needs were met. People were supported to attend religious services of their choice.

Care files were reviewed regularly and records showed that people were involved in making decisions about their care. Preserving people's dignity and respecting people's right to make choices were embedded in care plans.

The service had various feedback mechanisms, including formal complaints, house meetings and feedback surveys. This meant the service routinely listened to and learnt from people's experiences.

The home had a strong open, and person centred culture. Staff and people living in the service knew each other well and the home had a relaxed and homely feel.

People and staff spoke highly of the registered provider and described her as supportive.

The registered provider conducted appropriate audits and checks on the service to ensure it was delivering consistent, good quality care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was not always safe.

The recording of medicine administration was not always clear.

Risk assessments were updated during the inspection to include the measures in place to manage risk.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding adults and knew how to protect people from harm.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was not always effective.

Staff did not fully understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its implications for people living in the home.

Staff received appropriate support and supervision to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.

People were supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was caring.

The staff team was small and stable and had developed strong relationships with people living in the service.

The cultural and spiritual needs of people living in the service were supported well.

People were treated with respect and upholding their dignity was integral to care plans.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was not always responsive.

Records of care delivered lacked detail and did not include all the support provided.

People received personalised care that met their needs. People's bedrooms were decorated to their own tastes.

The service had a robust complaints policy. People and their relatives were encouraged to provide feedback about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was well led.

The registered provider promoted a person-centred and inclusive culture at the home.

Staff and people who used the service spoke highly of the registered provider and told us they felt well supported.

Systems were in place to ensure good management of the home.