You are here

Archived: Sisserou Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 4 March 2016

During a routine inspection

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.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At our previous inspection we were concerned that staff did not have up to date training in safeguarding and did not have any planned training for safeguarding.

For this review we were sent certificates of training completed in September 2013 and a list of current training planned for the next six months. We spoke to staff over the telephone and they told us that they had recently completed training on dignity and nutrition and safeguarding. The provider had taken appropriate steps to ensure that staff received appropriate training as we found that staff had already started to complete outstanding

Inspection carried out on 18 July 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit one person had gone out and the other was home. We observed positive interactions between staff and one person, who could not tell us verbally about the care they experienced.

Care plans were up to date and individual. People had risk assessments appropriate to the different environments (home, college, public areas) they visited.

We checked the menus and food supply and found food to be in date and meeting people's specific requirements.

Staff had knowledge about the different types of abuse and how to report but were no recent with safeguarding training.

We observed that the premises were in a fair state of repair, despite one bathroom which had no flooring and was due to be repaired the following Monday after our visit.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people. However, we were concerned that staff did not have up to date training.

Records were up to date and reflected the needs of people who used the service.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)