The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Precinct Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

4 & 6 Precinct Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB3 3AG (020) 8581 7351

Provided and run by:
Royal Mencap Society

All Inspections

22 October 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection took place on 22 October 2015. We gave the provider short notice of our visit to make sure the manager was available to help with the inspection. At our last inspection on 2 and 5 June 2015, we found six breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The overall rating for this service following our inspection in June 2015 was ‘Inadequate’. This meant that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) placed the service into ‘Special measures’. The purpose of special measures is to:

• Ensure that providers found to be providing inadequate care significantly improve.

• Provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and work with, or signpost to, other organisations in the system to ensure improvements are made.

• Provide a clear timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of care they provide or we will seek to take further action, for example cancel their registration.

Precinct Road is a service providing accommodation and personal care for up to five adults with a learning disability. When we inspected, four people were using the service.

The provider appointed a manager on 22 June 2015. The new manager has registered with the CQC. 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.

At this inspection, we found the provider had taken action to address all of the breaches we identified following our inspection in June 2015 and the quality of care and support provided in the service had greatly improved.

The provider had carried out work to address risks to people using the service.

The provider recorded and reported possible safeguarding concerns to the local authority and the CQC.

The provider did not deprive people of their liberty without authorisation.

The provider had arranged for the redecoration of all parts of the premises and the replacement of carpets on the stairs and some communal areas.

The registered manager and support staff had reviewed and updated their assessments of people’s social care needs.

There was a creative and person-centred approach to the support staff gave people to access meaningful activities.

The provider had appointed a new manager and they had registered with the CQC.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the operation of the service. The provider, registered manager and staff carried out regular checks and audits.

Following our last inspection, we placed the service in special measures. For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. As the provider has demonstrated improvements and the service is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five questions, it is no longer in special measures.

2 and 5 June 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 2 and 5 June 2015. The visit on 2 June was unannounced and we told the provider we would return on 5 June to complete the inspection. We last inspected the service in January 2014 when we found no breaches of the regulations.

Precinct Road is a service providing accommodation and personal care for up to five adults with a learning disability. When we inspected, four people were using the service. The home’s registered manager left the service in December 2014 and when we inspected, there was no registered manager in post. 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.

We found six breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People using the service may have been at risk of receiving care or support that was inappropriate or unsafe. This was because the provider did not report possible safeguarding incidents to the local authority or the Care Quality Commission, the provider did not maintain the premises and there were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs.

The provider assessed risks to people using the service and others and support staff had access to guidance on managing identified risks.

Where people were not able to make decisions about the care and support they received, the provider did not meet the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS provides a process to make sure that people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way, when it is in their best interests and there is no other way to look after them.

Support workers treated people with kindness and patience. They gave people the support they needed promptly and efficiently and individuals did not have to wait for staff to help them.

The provider produced all care planning and risk management documents in easy read formats to make the information easier for people using the service to understand.

The provider had not told CQC about changes to the management arrangements for the service.

One person’s relative commented positively on the care and support their family member received but said they were sometimes concerned there were not enough staff to support people.

Staff described the organisation as a good employer.

The overall rating for this provider is ‘Inadequate’. This means that it has been placed into ‘Special measures’ by CQC. The purpose of special measures is to:

  • Ensure that providers found to be providing inadequate care significantly improve
  • Provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and work with, or signpost to, other organisations in the system to ensure improvements are made.
  • Provide a clear timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of care they provide or we will seek to take further action, for example cancel their registration.

Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to vary the provider’s registration to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

11 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with the relatives of two people who live at Precinct Road. We asked their opinion of the care received by their relative, one person made the comment, "'no complaints, well pleased and I haven't seen better care anywhere.'

We observed that people's needs were assessed appropriately and care plans were individualised and person centred. Where people using the service were assessed as not having capacity to make specific decision we saw evidence of best interest meetings being held in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This demonstrated that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure the safety and welfare of people using the service

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider

had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from

happening. Staff we spoke to demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding and we saw well maintained financial records for each person using the service.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. We observed that there were always a minimum of two staff on duty. People received effective and safe care from suitably skilled staff who understood their individual needs. People who used the service had complex needs; we observed how the staff interacted with each individual and how they responded to their needs. They knew each person's different communication styles and responded promptly to ensure people got the support they needed.

We saw there were systems in place to gain feedback from people using the service and their relatives. This was accessible in an easy read format as provided by MENCAP, who are the service providers. We saw evidence of monthly parent/carers meeting where feedback and information sharing and can be explored further.

14 January 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit there were four people using the service. During our visit we spoke with two people who use the service and two staff.

People who use the service had complex needs so we observed how the staff treated them and how they responded to their needs. We saw that staff had a good understanding of each person and how to communicate with them. They knew each person's different communication styles and responded to these promptly to ensure people got the support they needed.

Staff were appropriately supported in their work and received regular training. They spoke positively about working at the home and felt there was good teamwork to ensure people's needs were met.

The environment of the home was maintained, with routine maintenance to ensure the home was safe for the people who use the service.

13 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We met some of the people who use the service during this inspection but we did not ask them for feedback about the care they receive. The purpose of this visit was to check whether the provider had made the improvements we identified during our last inspection of the home.

30 November 2010

During a routine inspection

People who live at the home told us they can choose the activities they take part in. We observed that people can choose how they spend their time at home but one person was not able to take part in their planned activity because staff had to support other people.

The people we spoke to told us that they like living at the home. We observed that the home needs to be redecorated to make people's surroundings homely and welcoming.

Staff told us they get the training and support they need to do their jobs and that they have an annual appraisal of their performance. Staff told us that the provider carried out checks on them when they started work.