Background to this inspection
Updated
9 November 2016
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 had improved since our last inspection and was 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.
This inspection took place on 6 October 2016 and was unannounced.
The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.
We reviewed information we held on the service. This included notifications of significant events that the provider was required to send us and the previous inspection report. We received information from the local authority following their checks of the service.
We spoke with six people who used the service, two care staff, the deputy manager and the provider.
We looked at three people's care records, staff rosters, medication storage and medicine records for all people who used the service. We looked at the systems the provider had in place to monitor the quality of the service.
Updated
9 November 2016
This inspection took place on 6 October 2016 and was unannounced. We inspected to look for improvements following our previous inspection in March 2016 where we had found several breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to people not receiving care that was safe, effective, caring, responsive or well led. We had issued three warning notices and told the provider to make improvements. At this inspection we found that the provider had made some improvements and they were no longer in breach of any Regulations, however further improvements were required. This report only covers our findings in relation to the areas of concern. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Roughcote Hall Farm on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Roughcote Hall Farm provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability. There were seven people using the service at the time of the inspection.
The service was not required to have a registered manager and was being managed by the provider. 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 were still not always given the opportunities to engage in activities that met their individual needs and preferences due to the restrictions on times of any planned community activities and the amount of people attending the activity at the same time. The provider needed to seek advice and support to ensure people were receiving the financial benefits available to them.
People were safeguarded from abuse and potential abuse as the provider and staff knew what to do if they suspected abuse had taken place.
Staffing levels had been increased and there were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet people's assessed needs.
People's medicines were being stored and administered safely. The provider had purchased new locked facilities to ensure medicines were stored safely and implemented a new medication audit to ensure that people received their medicines at the prescribed times.
Risks of harm to people were assessed and precautions put in place to minimise the risks to people.
The provider was following the principles of the MCA 2005 by ensuring that people who lacked the capacity to consent to their care were supported to make decisions that affected their care and welfare.
People were cared for by staff that were supported and trained to fulfil their roles.
People had access to health care when they became unwell or their health needs changed.
People's nutritional needs were met and people were supported to eat food of their choice.
People were treated with dignity and respect and they felt able to talk to staff or the provider if they had any concerns about their care.
The provider had made improvements to the systems they had in place to monitor the service and had been responsive to our previous inspection findings.