Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 20 Glamorgan Road

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

Is the service safe?

During our visit we saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect and followed safe support practices. People told us that they felt safe using the service. The service safeguarding procedures were robust, staff were trained in how to use them and understood how to safeguard people individually and in a group setting. Any areas of concern regarding individual people were recorded in the sample of two support plans we looked at.

There were systems that enabled the manager and staff to learn from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped service improvement.

The home had policies and procedures that worked in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Training was provided for relevant staff to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. There was one capacity assessment in place that was regularly reviewed. This meant that people were safeguarded.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic with well maintained equipment that was regularly serviced. This meant people were not put at unnecessary risk.

People's care needs were taken into account within the staff rotas when making decisions regarding the required staff numbers, qualifications, skills and experience. No staff were currently subject to disciplinary action and policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. This ensured that people's needs were met.

Is the service effective?

The home assessed people's needs with them and those that wished to contributed to their support plans. Any individual specialist input was identified in the support plans as required. The two support plans we saw contained evidence that people had contributed to them and they confirmed this when we spoke with them. People told us "I do my support plan and we have a chat" and "I know who my keyworker is".

The layout of the service enabled people to move around freely and safely.

The visiting policy and visitors' book demonstrated that people were able to see their visitors in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by professional, kind, knowledgeable and attentive staff. The staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, "I've been here a long time and enjoy living here'. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with this information.

People and their relatives completed bi-annual satisfaction questionnaires and there were weekly house meetings. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised regarding living at Glamorgan Road, these were addressed when identified.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities at home and within the local community. During our visit people from an activity group visited and held a sing-a-long session that people said they enjoyed. People's support plans identified and they confirmed that they were enabled to be involved in activities at home, within their local community and further afield.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the manager and staff listened to people's needs, opinions and acted upon them. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care and support in a joined up way. This was demonstrated by the relationship the home had with the local authority learning disability team and community based health services.

Appropriate notifications to the Care Quality Commission were made.

While the provider had addressed several risks at a local level, some of the issues raised from the fire report of July 2012 remained outstanding.

We were informed that a Fire Authority Officer from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority had inspected the premises at Glamorgan Road between our initial inspection of July 2013 and our most recent inspection in November 2013 and found evidence of a contravention in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

At our inspection in November 2013, while some work had commenced, we saw outstanding risks including a door that would not close effectively into its frame and a door guard not working correctly. This meant that the door would not close fully to prevent fire progressing into the room and protecting people who use the service.

We spoke with the provider of the home who informed us that fire prevention and repair work had been scheduled to begin.

We looked at three electronic and two documented care records about health decisions and people's involvement in these. We were unable to find any decisions or choices made by people living at the home in relation to their rights to access some aspects of the national preventative screening opportunities. Examples we looked for included access to mammogram and national bowel screening tests for the early detection of cancer in the over sixties.

We looked at three people's medication files and Medication Administration Charts (MAR) sheets. We checked each prescribed medication value with that of the pre-loaded blister packs. Medication was being safely managed.

We asked staff about staff ratios and staffing levels and was advised that only one waking night staff was available to support eight people. Some of these people were of advancing years and had changes to their health needs. Several people had difficulty with mobilising. We asked how one staff member would cope in an emergency and were told that the decision had been taken by the local authority.

We looked at care and support records. The records we looked at were maintained securely.