• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 56 Chart Lane

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

56 Chart Lane, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 7DZ

Provided and run by:
Royal Mencap Society

All Inspections

30 June 2015

During a routine inspection

56 Chart Lane is a residential home for up to eight adults with learning difficulties. Some people are also starting to experience age associated conditions, for example the early stages of dementia. There were six people living at the home at the time of our inspection. Accommodation is over three floors.

This inspection took place on 30 June 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 16 September 2013 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the environment and staffing levels. At this inspection we found the improvements required had been made. There had also been additional increases in staffing levels to meet the changing needs of people.

People all said they felt safe and there was nothing worrying them. They said the staff were kind and they were happy. One person said staff made sure they had the things they wanted. For example, items they wanted and decorations in their room. People said staff helped them write their care plans, helped them when they needed it, and in the way they wanted. People said they liked their rooms and food. They told us they could choose what they wanted and could have a snack or a drink any time. People also said they shopped for food, helped cook and enjoyed the activities and holidays.

The home had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff knew how to report suspected abuse and their responsibilities for doing so. Staff recorded assessments to identify any risks and plans were in place to reduce the risks. For example, some people’s verbal communication skills varied and there was a risk at times their needs would not be known, To address this there were two specific alternative communication systems in place and staff used these when needed.

People were supported by enough suitably qualified and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken to ensure the staff were suitable for their role. There was enough staff with the appropriate skills and experience to keep people safe. Staff were appropriately trained and understood their responsibilities. Staff received training to ensure the care provided to people was safe and met their needs. Staff received regular supervision and support to assist them to deliver care that met people’s needs.

The premises and equipment were safe with regular health and safety checks carried out. There were safety audits to ensure the premises was safe and annual testing of equipment and services such as hoists and electrical equipment.

Systems were in place to ensure that medicines were stored, administered and managed safely. Staff had received the required training, and there were enough experienced staff to manage medicines appropriately to meet people’s needs safely. People had access to healthcare services to ensure their health needs were met. For example their GP, opticians and dieticians.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink to make sure their nutritional needs were met. At mealtimes people ate well and were content with their choices. One person showed us in a file full of food pictures and showed us what foods they liked and had eaten every day.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. These safeguards protect the rights of people by ensuring any restrictions to their freedom and liberty had been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. The home was meeting the requirements for DoLS. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act to ensure people’s legal rights were protected where they lacked capacity.

Care plans were developed with people to identify how they wished to be supported and which goals they wanted to achieve and these were regularly reviewed. People were supported in a way that promoted their dignity by being valued, spoken to kindly and treated with respect.

There was a formal complaints procedure with response times. Where people were not satisfied with the initial response it also included a system to escalate the complete to the provider.

People received care that was consistently responsive to their needs. The registered manager was inclusive and promoted a transparent culture. The provider analysed and acted on information acquired from quality assurance questionnaires to monitor and improve the quality of care. The home was in line with their CQC registration requirements, including the submission of notifications to us so we could monitor incidents in the home.

16 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service talked about activities they were planning for the day and the next day, such as going shopping, to the dentist, going to town and going to day center.

People who used the service told us they had enjoyed their meal. They said they liked the food and got enough to eat, had choices of food and they could have a snack or a drink at any time.

People who used the service also told us they had shopped for the food and helped cook, clear up and do the hovering.

People who used the service said they liked their rooms and the home, they were warm enough in winter and the water from the taps in their rooms was not too hot. One person told us they liked their room and wouldn't change anything.

People who use the service also said they liked the staff and they helped them the way they wanted. One person said they liked the staff and a staff member would be taking them to Redhill later to have a look around.

When asked what their favorite foods were, one person showed us the foods they liked on the pictorial menu board and another person showed us the drawings they had been doing.

We found people were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

We found that the provider was not always protecting people, as they were leaving areas with hazardous products, sharp hazards, tripping and electrical hazards, unsecured and accessible to people. They were also not fully assessing the type, state and suitability of the window restrictors, and maintaining or replacing them as needed.

We found there were not always enough skilled and qualified staff to meet people's needs, because the lowest staffing level of the day was provided at the time of day when there was high need. This was when people were getting up and needed support at the same time.

We found that some staff records and those of the people who use the service were not kept confidentially and securely and some records were not available or could not be promptly located when needed.

26 March 2013

During a routine inspection

The provider told us they carefully assessed the care and support needs of people living in the home. All the people, their relatives, representatives and health care professionals, where necessary were involved in this process. The arrangements for supporting people to make decisions about their daily lives and preferences were recorded in their care plans.

We spoke with two people who used the service. They told us they had monthly meetings with their key worker to review their care plan and discuss their activities. We reviewed three care plans and saw they were individualised and identified people's needs. One person we spoke with said, 'I am able to tell staff when I want to go out and where I want to go. For example, I go to the shop to buy magazine daily that I read and they support me with this'.

Our observations of the service showed that staff spoke and interacted with people who used the service in a patient and pleasant manner. An individual told us "Staff are friendly, helpful and supportive'.

There were no effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

People had their comments and complaints listened to and acted upon without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint.

25 November 2011

During a routine inspection

Some people using the service were busy attending activities. Some people told us that about the activities that they attend such as going to college.

People told us that they were happy living in the home and that they liked the staff. The home provided a relaxed and friendly environment. We observed good interactions between staff and people who use the service. Staff had a good knowledge of people's means of communication. We observed a member of staff communicating with a person using makaton sign language.

People who use the service told us that staff respect their right to privacy. One person told us that they had a key to their bedroom.

People using the service were consulted about their plan of care. A person using the service said that staff always discuss this with them.

People were supported to be as independent as possible. One person told us that staff were supporting them to use the bus. People told us that they enjoyed their meals, which they can choose. They are also supported to prepare their meals. One person said that they make their sandwiches to take to work.