Archived: Argyll House

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.

One person we spoke with told us, 'I haven't lived here that long but it's the first place I've felt safe in and my things are safe in my room. I feel I've fitted in ok.' Another person told us 'I have more good days than bad now.' A third person said, 'I'm still settling in at the moment. It's very different living here; I've got so much freedom.'

We spoke with people about the food in Argyll House and received comments such as, 'The food's so good here.' 'There's a menu every day but if you don't like what's on it, you can have something different.' And, 'The meals are all very good here; we usually have a ploughman's type of lunch but there's a lot to choose from'

All three people we spoke with told us that they knew what medicines they had been prescribed, what they were for and how and when to take them.

A member of staff confirmed that they had regular one-to-one time with their manager for supervisions and appraisals.

When speaking with people about making a complaint, everyone confirmed that they knew how to make a complaint and felt comfortable talking to the manager or their keyworkers. One person said, 'I'd just talk to [manager] or any of the staff' Other comments included, 'hopefully I'll never need to' and 'I've got no complaints about anything here'

Each person we spoke with told us that they were happy with the support they received and felt their needs were being met. Everybody said the staff were very good, kind, caring and supportive.

We saw that the support plans were completely individual, very 'person centred' and regularly reviewed and updated.

People were provided with comfortable and well maintained private accommodation and shared communal areas. We saw that people's own rooms were individual, in accordance with their choices, and that people were able to have their personal possessions around them.

All the people we spoke with, who lived in Argyll House, said they knew how to make a complaint or raise any concerns. Each person told us that they believed any concerns would be listened to and that they would be taken seriously by staff.

We saw that there were a number of systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided.

Overall, we saw that the ethos at Argyll House was genuinely about empowering people. This supported the organisation's philosophy of promoting people's independence and supporting them to move forward with their difficulties and live full lives in an appropriate community setting.