The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 1 Greville Road

1 Greville Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 5AW

Provided and run by:
Royal Mencap Society

All Inspections

17, 18 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with three of the five people who used the service during our two visits. Two people told us they received the help they needed. Due to their learning disabilities and communication skills we also observed interactions with staff to obtain information about how they were supported. We spoke with three relatives who were positive about the support from staff. Two commented on staff changes having affected the continuity of support people received. Two also commented on the need for improvements to the physical environment. A healthcare professional and a local authority quality improvement officer also told us of their concerns about the suitability and condition of the environment.

We found some progress had been made to act in accordance with legal requirements when people did not have the capacity to consent. However, staff training and development of the use of mental capacity assessments would ensure that appropriate people were consulted for significant decisions. Recruitment had taken place and new staff were being inducted to the service. Ongoing staff turnover and use of agency and bank staff meant that further work was needed to ensure that enough, sufficiently trained members if staff were in place to consistently support people.

The quality assurance of the service and processes to identify, assess and manage risks were not comprehensive. Effective steps had not been taken to ensure care was provided in an environment that was suitably designed, adequately maintained and decorated, clean or free from the risk of infection. People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because people's care records contained contradictory information or insufficient information putting them at risk of inappropriate care or treatment.

29 October and 4 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with all six people who used the service during our two visits. Due to their learning disabilities and communication skills we also observed interactions with staff to obtain information about how they were supported. We found people's needs were being reassessed and they liked changes that had taken place.

We found there had been a change of management and staff since the last inspection and changes were taking place to address the quality of the service. This included close monitoring of the management of medicines. However the quality audit system for Mencap had not been followed to effectively identify areas for improvement.

We found there were not enough staff to meet people's needs. People were consulted on day to day decisions but records for people and the management of the service were not up to date. These included assessments, mental capacity assessments and care plans. Risk assessments were not up to date and this meant some action plans such as personal emergency evacuation plans were in the process of being revised. Risk of infection had not been fully assessed and cleaning and hygiene systems were not fully implemented.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activity at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time of this inspection.

27 November 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The purpose of this visit was to monitor progress with staff supervision and training and the assessment of risks within the service following action identified as needed on 3 July 2012. At this inspection we spoke with two members of staff and the manager. We found that progress had been made with plans in place for staff training and supervision. We found that risk assessments were in place and a system of monitoring established but in need of development to ensure documentation of monitoring was more detailed.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time of this inspection.

3 July 2012

During a routine inspection

Five of the people using the service were available to speak with us during our visit to the service. Information we obtained through verbal communication was limited as people were not always able to tell us about their experiences. Therefore to understand their experiences we observed care being delivered to people who used the service, spoke with staff and looked at care records. Staff supported people in a caring and friendly manner. We saw that people were involved in activities that they wanted to take part in. This included two people being assisted on a one to one basis to use the facilities in the local community.

14 July 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We were only able to speak to 2 people during the visit and received limited information from them. We also spoke to social services who have recently investigated an allegation that a staff member shouted at someone living at the home. This allegation could not be substantiated and social services told us that the service is meeting people's needs.

People told us that they are happy living at the service and that the staff treat them well. People told us that they like the food and that they attend a number of activities. We were also told that if people have concerns that they would speak to the staff.