You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The inspection took place on 12 July 2017 and was unannounced.

Coates Garden House is situated in Patrington, near Withernsea, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is set out over two floors and has eight single bedrooms. There are shared bathroom facilities and various communal areas for people to use. The service provides support for up to eight people with learning disabilities and mental health conditions. It is within walking distance of local amenities. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the service.

During our previous inspection on 15 April 2015, we found the provider had failed to implement and record robust pre-employment checks to ensure care workers were of a suitable character to work with vulnerable people before commencing their role.

At this inspection we saw recruitment processes ensured people were not exposed to care workers who had been barred from working with vulnerable adults this helped to ensure that only care workers deemed suitable were employed. These checks had been completed before care workers commenced their role.

We were supported during our inspection by 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. The registered manager will be referred to as 'manager' throughout the report.

People told us they felt safe living at the home with the care workers who supported them. Care workers had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse and harm. Systems and processes were in place to ensure any concerns were reviewed and escalated for further investigation and actions were implemented to mitigate re-occurrence and to help keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse.

The provider had completed risks assessments for the home and for people who lived there. Care and support was provided based on the assessed risks which meant people could live their lives safely without undue restrictions.

People received their medicines as prescribed and safe systems were in place to manage people's medicines. Care workers were trained in medicine administration and their competency was checked. Audits had been introduced for the management and administration of medicines to ensure people received their medicines in line with their prescription and to ensure they were managed according to best practice guidance.

There were enough care workers to meet people's needs. People received support from care workers who respected people’s dignity and privacy and promoted their independence, following their wishes and preferences.

Care plans were managed electronically and information was person centred. People had been involved in their care planning and reviews. Provision had been added to the electronic records for people to sign their consent and agreement to the information held and the provider told us they would be updating this as part of people’s review of their care and support.

People were supported to pursue a wide and diverse variety of social activities relevant to their needs, wishes, culture and interests. Arrangements were in place for people to maintain links with the local community, friends and family.

The manager and care workers had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At the time of our inspection no one living at the service had been assessed for a DoLS. Care and support promoted people’s independence and this was recorded in people’s care plans.

The provider supported care workers with training and supervision to ensure they had the up to date skills and knowledge to carry out their role and meet people’s individual needs.

People chose and assisted in the preparation of their food and drink and were

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was safe.

Care workers had received training in safeguarding adults and understood the signs of abuse to look out for and how to report any concerns.

There were sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff to support people according to their needs.

Care workers received training and policy and procedures were in place that ensured people received their medicines safely as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff that had the knowledge and skills to provide good care to people.

Care workers we spoke with understood the importance of ensuring people consented to the care and support provided and had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

There were systems in place to support people to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was caring.

We observed the service provided person centred care and it was clear the care workers had an understanding of people's needs.

People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected.

Care workers encouraged and supported people to remain independent.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans included up to date person centred information and were reviewed as a minimum every two months or more often when people�s needs changed.

People's views and opinions were sought in a variety of ways and their ideas and suggestions were responded to.

Effective systems were in place to respond to any concerns and complaints raised.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was well led.

Everybody spoke highly of the registered manager and the organisation. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

The provider sought and acted on the views of care workers and people receiving care and support to improve the service provided.

There was a variety of methods in place to share information regarding the service with people and staff within the organisation.

Quality assurance systems including audits were in place. This helped to maintain and improve standards at the service.