You are here

Archived: Cabrini Children's Society - 3 Healy Drive


Inspection carried out on 7 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff were aware of the importance of consent and people were asked for their consent before care was provided. People's needs were assessed and risk assessments were carried out before care was provided. These were regularly reviewed so that staff were aware of the best way to provide support.

The manager and area manager were available on a daily basis to oversee the staff, and monitor that people were being safely supported, for example with personal care and when travelling out in the community. Health care professionals and social services were involved in people's care planning and in responding to people's concerns when needed. There were always a minimum of two staff available to support people throughout the day and two people at night to respond to night support needs.

There were arrangements in place to deal with emergencies and to make sure people were safe. People's health needs were included in their care planning to ensure they were healthy. Fire safety equipment and procedures were in place to ensure people would be kept safe in the event of a fire. The staff and manager were trained in protecting people from neglect or abuse and people told us they felt safe in their home.

There were safe procedures in place to look after and administer medication and staff who were responsible for people's medication were trained for this task.

Effective recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that suitable staff were employed. This included checking their history of employment to ensure they were experienced and of good character.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with three people who used the service and observed staff working with people. People told us that the staff and manager were very caring and supportive. We saw that staff always took the time to stop and speak with people and spoke with them in a manner they best understood, speaking slowly and using pictures to help people to understand. One person said: “the staff are always helpful and respectful and they make living here easy for me," and “they are brilliant at helping me to do things for myself and to make choices about doing things.”

Is the service effective?

We saw from four people’s records we looked at that people's needs were assessed and a care plan was drawn up to meet those needs. Three people told us they were happy with the plan provided. Regular reviews were made of the plan and people told us they were involved in the reviews. There were suitable policies in place for consent to care, management of medication and recruitment. One person told us: "the staff know how to support me well and I have learned how to travel by myself and I have got a job which I love.”

People who used the service were consulted for their views on a regular basis, which involved the person, their family or advocate and social services. Any changes they requested were included in a revised care plan.

Staff had been recruited safely and were provided with adequate support, guidance and training to do their job. They were experienced in supporting people with learning disabilities and used effective systems to communicate with people, such as including pictures in choices of food and activities and to ensure people knew familiar staff were scheduled to support them.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with who used the service told us that the staff and manager always listened to their concerns and do something to help sort out any problems they are experiencing. People were provided with a range of enjoyable activities and changes were made when necessary to try out new activities. People's support plans were reviewed and changed when necessary in response to changing needs, for example in helping people to become more independent in managing their medication and being involved in shopping and cooking. People told us they had lots of interesting activities and that the staff listened when they wanted to do something different.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager was involved in direct care and worked with all the staff almost every day. They felt this meant they could identify any issues quickly and address them if they arose. Staff we spoke with told us that they felt the home was very well managed and that they received direction and training to allow them to support people at the home. Regular staff meetings and supervision sessions were held and staff said they felt able to raise any issues with the management openly and honestly.

People who used the service told us that they felt the manager was very good at managing the home and was always present to speak with them about any concerns.

There were a range of systems in place to monitor the quality of people's care, and to make sure any concerns about staff, management or the way in which care was delivered were addressed.

Inspection carried out on 17 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We saw that staff treated people respectfully and involved them in decisions about their care, using pictures and other means to communicate with them when speaking or reading wasn’t possible. People were involved in the running of their home, for example three people we observed were being supported by staff in making snacks doing shopping and doing their laundry. People told us they were happy at the home and that their family regularly visited.

Care planning and reviews took place regularly with involvement from people who used the service. We found that people’s ability to consent to their care was being assessed, and staff understood people's care needs and how to protect them from risk and harm. People were provided with adequate food and drinks, and were given choices of food they liked. Five people told us that they were asked about the food they liked, and said the food provided was good. The home was clean and hygiene standards were maintained to protect people’s health.

Staff were supported by the manager to safely support people through regular supervision and training, and there were systems in place to listen and respond to people’s complaints or concerns.

Inspection carried out on 28 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service who told us they were very happy living at the home and that the staff were very helpful and friendly. One person said "this home is the best place I've ever lived". Another person told us "the staff help me to go shopping and to help with cooking my meals". We saw that staff treated people respectfully and staff provided support quickly when requested. For example one person who enjoyed looking at wrestling was supported by staff to choose the right channel to watch it. We saw one person being asked about what they would like for their tea and then being supported to prepare their meal. All of the people were allowed to freely speak with the manager and staff. People's care plans were written in a way that enabled individuals to understand their contents by using pictures and symbols, and they were signed by the person or someone on their behalf. We found that some of the needs of peoples were not always met because volunteers working at the home did not have adequate training and other staff did not have training in infection control. Formal staff supervision was not always done as often as was required by the provider’s policy.

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