Archived: Argyll House

Updated 20 April 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 15 and 16 December 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection, we requested that the provider complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This was received from the provider. We reviewed this information when planning our visit. Before the inspection, we reviewed other information available to us about the home, such as the notifications they had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law

During this inspection we met and spoke with five people living in the home. We also spoke with five members of staff. These included the manager, the owner and three support staff. Three healthcare professionals, who had regular contact with the service, also gave us feedback.

We reviewed four people’s care records and risk assessments and checked a selection of medicines administration records. We reviewed a sample of other risk assessments, quality assurance records and health and safety records. We looked at staff training records and reviewed information on how the quality of the service was monitored and managed.

Updated 20 April 2017

This inspection took place on 15 and 16 December 2016 and was unannounced. Argyll House provides accommodation, care and support for up to 12 adults with mental health needs. There were 10 people living in the home when we inspected.

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.

People living in the home were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding adults, including recognising signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. Medicines were stored and managed safely, and were administered as prescribed. The premises were well maintained, with regular health and safety checks and up-to-date servicing. Risks were assessed and managed in the least restrictive way possible.

There were enough staff to provide the care and support people needed. Staffing levels were based on people’s needs and were kept under review. Staff were recruited safely, checks being undertaken before they started work to ensure they were suitable to work in a care setting.

Staff were well trained and were competent in their roles. There was a proactive support system in place for staff that developed their knowledge and skills and motivated them to provide a better quality service. Some training had been specifically sourced to help meet individual’s needs.

Managers and staff applied the Mental Capacity Act 2005 with confidence, ensuring that people were as involved as they could be in decisions about their care.

There was a strong emphasis on the importance of eating and drinking well. Mealtimes were relaxed and sociable and people enjoyed their meals. Food options were attractively presented and people had ample choices regarding what they wanted to eat. Special dietary requirements were understood and provided for. Food and drinks were available whenever people wanted them. If people were at risk of not eating and drinking enough, they were supported effectively with this. People had regular and ongoing access to healthcare and relevant professionals.

Care was planned in partnership with people and people received the care and support they needed to meet their individual needs. People spoke highly of the quality of care they received. The owner, manager and staff were all committed to working in a person-centred way. They respected people’s wishes and preferences and treated them with kindness and compassion.

People were supported by compassionate and caring staff, who placed people’s wellbeing as a priority. Staff built strong relationships with people and consistently respected people’s dignity and privacy. People were able to choose what they wanted to do and when. People were also supported to develop and maintain relationships with their friends and families.

Creative ways were found to enable people to live full and meaningful lives. People were encouraged to do things they enjoyed and this included social activities based on people’s interests. People engaged in a number of activities inside and outside of the home and were supported to develop, maintain and enhance their independence as much as possible. People’s health needs were responded to in a way that had a positive impact on their quality of life.

People’s rights were protected because the manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and were confident in putting these into practice. People were strongly encouraged to express their views and were fully involved in decisions about their care. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people and sought this before providing care.

The service had a clear management structure, with an established registered manager and a ‘hands-on’ owner. People living in the home, visitors and staff were confident in the leadership of the service. They were encouraged to raise any issues of concern, which were taken seriously and the appropriate action taken.

The manager and owner were supportive to the staff in the home, who all worked well together as a strong team. There was a strong emphasis on continually striving to improve the service. There were active endeavours to involve people through informal conversation, formal reviews, meetings and surveys. As well as consulting with people, the service strove for excellence through reflective practice at all levels, from care staff to management. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and bring about any improvements that were needed. The service worked in partnership with other organisations to make sure they were following current practice and providing a high quality service.