Queensway House

Queensway House is a purpose-built care home providing nursing care for up to 22 people with mental health support needs. The home is set over two floors; each person had a small flat which contained, a bedroom, living, kitchen and bathroom area. There were 20 people living at the home at the time of this inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were positive about the support they received at Queensway House and told us they were happy living there. A person-centred culture was at the centre of the service. Staff had built effective relationships with people and were kind and caring in their approach. People’s dignity and privacy were respected.

Staff told us they were able to develop positive relationships with the people they supported. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff knew how to raise any concerns. People who lived at Queensway House told us they felt safe. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs in an unrushed way and staff had been recruited safely. The environment had recently been refurbished, it was clean and well maintained.

People were supported by care staff who had a range of skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff understood their role, were well trained and supervised. Staff felt well supported by the provider. People's health was well supported as staff worked with other health care providers to ensure their health needs were met. Staff took a holistic approach to support people’s health and well-being.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Care records were person-centred and provided staff with detailed guidance about people's individual needs. Staff were consistent and knowledgeable about people’s needs, responded to any changes and intervened quickly to prevent further deterioration.

People were well supported to take part in meaningful activities and the home had good links with the community. People felt able to raise any concerns and were given the opportunity to provide feedback about the care they received.

The home was well -led. The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the care. Staff were positive about the management team. There was an emphasis on continuous learning.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was ‘good’. (Report published 12 January 2017). At this inspection the rating remained ‘good’.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 people. People who use the service have enduring mental health needs. At the time of our inspection 21 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection, we found that the required improvements had been made.

Safe staffing levels were maintained to promote people’s safety and to ensure people participated in activities of their choosing.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and planned for. Staff knew how to keep people safe and risks were managed effectively to promote people’s safety.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff knew how to recognise and report potential abuse.

Staff received regular training that provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

Staff supported people to make decisions about their care and when people were unable to make these decisions for themselves, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed.

People could eat meals that met their individual preferences. People’s health and wellbeing needs were monitored and people were supported to access health and social care professionals when needed.

Staff knew people well which meant they could interact with them positively and effectively. People were treated with kindness and respect and staff promoted people’s independence, dignity and right to privacy.

People were involved in the assessment and review of their care and staff supported and encouraged people to participate in leisure and social based activities that met their personal preferences.

People knew how to complain about their care and an effective system was in place to manage complaints.

Effective systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of care. Feedback from people was sought to enable the provider to identify if improvements to care were needed.

The registered manager understood the requirements of their registration with us and they reported notifiable incidents to us.

The service offers accommodation and nursing care for up to 22 people with enduing mental health needs. At the time of the inspection 22 people were using the service. Not everyone was able to speak to us due to their communication difficulties.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

There were insufficient staff to keep people safe and to meet their individual needs. The registered manager was actively recruiting new staff using safe recruitment procedures.

People's medicines were not always managed safely. The provider could not be sure that people had their prescribed medicines at the times they needed them.

Risks to people were assessed and reviewed. However accurate records of all incidents were not kept to ensure that care being delivered was safe and appropriate.

People were not always treated with dignity and respect and their independence was not always promoted.

Systems the provider had in place to monitor the quality of the service were not always effective.

The provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensured that people were consenting to or being supported to consent to their care, treatment and support.

When people lacked capacity to make decisions, they were supported to make decisions in their best interests with support from their representatives.

People's health care needs were met and they had sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

People received care that was personalised and reflected their individual preferences. When people's needs changed, staff responded and reviewed the way they delivered care to them.

People's religious needs were met.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people and their representatives were encouraged to have a say in the way in which the service was run.

During the inspection we spoke with four staff, one volunteer and two people living in the home. We looked at how staff gained consent from people and how their care and welfare needs were met. Staff told us how they always asked people before they did anything, for example, what they would like to do, what they want to wear or their choice of meal.

We saw that care records were up to date and showed the staff clearly recorded that the person's needs were being met and how they were doing this with their consent. Staff told us about how they protect the people living in the home from abuse. They had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how they would report it.

We spoke with two of the staff about how they were supervised at work. Both staff members told us that they were well supported by the management and senior staff. Both staff members had been through the annual appraisal system and they told us how they were encouraged to attend mandatory and extra training ensuring they developed their skills whilst working at the home.

We talked with the manager about the complaints process and how complaints were dealt with. There were no current complaints at the time of the inspection.

Some people living at the home were unable to fully communicate with us, due to their health needs, so we used a short observational framework tool (SOFI) to observe the support they received and how they responded to it.

An expert by experience took part in this inspection and talked to the people who used the service. Our experts by experience are people of all ages, from diverse cultural backgrounds who have used a range of health and/or social care services. They looked at what happened in the house groups and what it was like to live there. They wrote a report about what they found and details were included in this report.

We saw that documentation was up to date and reflected the current condition of people living in the home. We saw that staff were trained to safeguard people from abuse and had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to look for signs. We spoke with staff that told us they enjoyed their work and they were able to discuss their individual roles and responsibilities. The results of a questionnaire, sent to relatives demonstrated almost full satisfaction in all areas.