You are here

Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 29 Firgrove Hill Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 March 2016

This inspection was carried out on 9 February 2016 and was unannounced. Royal Mencap Society – 29 Firgrove Hill is a service for up to five people living with learning disabilities. Accommodation is a house with three floors. On the day of our visit three people lived at the service.

On the day of our visit there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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’s needs were met because there were enough staff at the service. Accidents and incidents with people were recorded on the service computer with a written copy kept in a file. Staff had knowledge of safeguarding adult’s procedures and what to do if they suspected any type of abuse. Staff had undergone recruitment checks before they started work.

People’s medicines were administered and stored safely. One member of staff told us that they had been trained to support people with their medicines.

Risks had been assessed and managed appropriately to keep people safe which included the environment. The risk assessments for people were detailed and informative and included measures that had been introduced to reduce the risk of harm.

In the event of an emergency, such as the building being flooded or a fire, there was a service contingency plan which detailed what staff needed to do to protect people and make them safe.

People’s human rights were protected because the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) were followed. There was evidence of mental capacity assessments specific to particular decisions that needed to be made.

People were supported by staff that were knowledgeable and supported in their role. Staff had received all the appropriate training for their role and their competencies were regularly assessed.

People were supported to maintain healthy lifestyles. Where people needed effective systems were in place to monitor their nutrition and hydration. Staff were regularly weighing people.

People had access to a range of health care professionals, such as the consultants, dietician and GP. It was clear to them that staff understood people’s conditions.

Staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful way. One member of staff said “I enjoy it here very much, I like that I’m needed and that I can help people.”

People were involved in planning their care. We saw that care plans had detail around people’s backgrounds and personal history and included people’s views on what they wanted. Staff knew and understood what was important to the person and supported them to maintain their interests.

People were supported by staff who understood their needs. Where it had been identified that a person’s needs had changed staff were providing the most up to date care. People were able to take part in activities which they enjoyed and were supported to live as independently as they could.

There was a complaints procedure in place for people to access if they needed to and this was in a pictorial format for people to understand. People were reminded at every meeting how they could raise a concern if they had one.

Staff said that they felt supported and valued. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. This included audits, surveys and meetings with people and staff.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 March 2016

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs of people.

Medicines were being managed appropriately and people were receiving the medicines when they should. Medicines were stored and disposed of safely.

Risks were assessed and managed well, with care plans and risk assessments providing clear information and guidance to staff.

Staff understood and recognised what abuse was and knew how to report it if this was required. All staff underwent complete recruitment checks to make sure that they were suitable before they started work.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 March 2016

The service was effective.

Mental Capacity Assessments had been completed for people. Applications had been submitted to the local authority where people who were unable to consent were being deprived of their liberty.

Staff had received appropriate up to date training. They had regular supervision meetings with their manager.

Staff understood people’s nutritional needs and provided them with appropriate assistance. People’s weight, food and fluid intakes had been monitored and effectively managed.

People’s health needs were monitored and had access to external healthcare professionals when they needed it.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 March 2016

People were treated with care, dignity and respect and had their privacy protected.

Staff interacted with people in a respectful or positive way.

Staff were caring and we observed that people were consulted about their care and their daily life in the service.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 March 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff we spoke with knew the needs of people they were supporting. We saw there were activities and events which people took part in. People were supported to live independent lives.

There was a complaints policy and people understood what they needed to do if they were not happy about something.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 March 2016

The service was well-led.

People felt comfortable with the manager and approached them when they wanted.

There were effective procedures in place to monitor the quality of the service. Where issues were identified and actions plans were in place these had been addressed.

Staff said that they felt supported, listened to and valued at the service. Staff understood the ethos of the service.