All inspections: Milverton Road Care Home

We inspected the service on 17 and 18 of February 2015. This was an unannounced inspection. Milverton Road Care Home is a detached property providing accommodation for up to six younger adults. When we visited there were six people living in the house. There are three steps leading down to the front door of the home, and all bedrooms are upstairs on the first floor. The home is not accessible to wheelchair users as there is no lift and there are no plans to adapt the premises. The home is sited within a residential community with access to a variety of local facilities. On the day of our inspection five people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 looked after by staff who were caring but supported people’s independence as much as possible. There was a consistent staff group who enjoyed their role and worked well together to provide a good quality of care.

The development of the service was important to staff, the manager and the provider. They were involving people and their families by strengthening these relationships. There were no restrictions on when families could visit and people were supported to go out when they chose.

There was an open culture in the home so that people were encouraged to express their views and needs. Staff were also supported and felt able to share their ideas with the manager to improve the service.

People’s health needs were assessed and reviewed regularly and there was good partnership working with health and social care colleagues.

The registered manager made sure that medicines were given safely, ordered on time and stored properly.

People had choices about what to eat and were involved in shopping and food preparation.

People’s rights were protected by staff and the manager as they understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Applications were being made to protect people who needed to be assessed and protected using this legislation.

When we visited the service in July 2013 we found there were some minor improvements needed to care planning. We asked the registered provider to send us an action plan telling us when they would make the improvements by. The provider sent us an action plan and this inspection was carried out to check the improvements had been made.

We saw the care plans had been updated in line with the action plan and that the plans gave clear information to staff on how to manage the health conditions of people using the service. Staff we spoke with knew how to recognise and respond to people's health conditions.

At the time of our inspection there were two registered managers on our system. This report shows the name of two registered managers, although this information is incorrect. This is because one of the registered managers has not yet submitted the required documentation to cease being the registered manager at this location.

We were not able to communicate verbally with some people using the service due to limitations in some people's verbal communication. We gained the views of whether two people were happy with the service by asking short questions. Both people we spoke with indicated they were happy living in the home. We gathered the views of what it was like using the service by spending time in communal areas observing people and by looking at records. We also spoke with a relative of a person using the service.

We looked at the care and support plans of three people using the service and we found two people's needs were not fully assessed or planned for. This meant there was a risk their needs may not always be met appropriately or safely.

The relative we spoke with told us they felt their relative was safe and they knew what to do if they had any concerns. Staff we spoke with knew the procedures for reporting any incidents or allegations of abuse. This meant there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

We found people were being given their medication as prescribed and staff were being trained and supported to manage medication safely.

Staff were being supported to carry out their roles and responsibilities appropriately through the delivery of training and supervision. We spoke with the relative of one person using the service and they spoke positively about the staff. They told us, 'Staff are friendly, welcoming and helpful.' They told us they felt staff knew what they were doing.

We were not able to communicate verbally with people using the service due to limitations in people's verbal communication. We gained their views by speaking with relatives, observing people during the day and looking at records.

We observed people being supported and cared for by staff during our inspection. We saw staff clearly knew peoples individual needs and their likes and dislikes. People using the service appeared confident, relaxed and comfortable with the staff supporting them. We saw people using the service showing their sense of fun and having a good rapport with staff and this was also commented on in a positive way by a relative we spoke with.

One relative we spoke with told us they felt their relative was safe in the service. They told us if they needed to raise a concern they would feel comfortable doing this with staff or the acting manager and they felt their concerns would be acted upon.

We saw a satisfaction survey had been sent to relatives of people using the service since we last inspected. We looked at the responses which had been received back and found the comments to be very positive. Comments included, 'My relative always seems happy. They go swimming, to pubs and clubs and trips out', 'I am grateful for the care given to my relative, the support has been consistently good' and 'support given to my relative gives me peace of mind.'

We carried out this review because we had concerns that this service had not been visited since the last inspection which took place on 30 March 2009.

People using the service had communication difficulties so we observed them during our visit and we spoke to two relatives of two people using the service.

We observed a person using the service who had been supported by staff to go out for the morning. The person had obviously enjoyed the trip out and appeared happy and relaxed in the home.

One persons relative told us, 'Milverton has been a godsend to my relative and family. My relative didn't often go out before they moved into the home and they are now enjoying social activities. The staff communicate really well with my relative and their quality of life has improved. I have visited often and witnessed lot's of positive interaction and staff know people who live there really well.'

We observed lunch and we saw that this was flexible to peoples needs and wishes and there were staff available to give assistance where needed.

Another relative told us, 'there was a family evening last month and I went to that and was able to speak with the manager. If I had any concerns I would talk to the manager about it but I have not been asked my opinion about the service.'

These older reports are from our old approaches to inspection, including those from before CQC was created.

Archived: Milverton Road Care Home

All Inspections

17 and 18 February 2015

During a routine inspection

3 December 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

23 July 2013

During a routine inspection

9 May 2012

During a routine inspection

17 January 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

Reports under our old system of regulation