You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 August 2017

Rochdale Area B is part of Mencap, which is a national charity that supports adults with a learning disability. Rochdale Area B is a scheme that has a number of shared houses where people have joint tenancies but are supported by staff that are available 24 hours a day. They also support people in their own homes. On the day of our inspection 75 people were being supported in the Greater Manchester and Stockport areas. The office is located in Rochdale.

At the last inspection of April 2015 the service were rated as good. At this inspection the service remained good.

The service 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.

The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow.

People who used the service and staff thought there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs.

People told us they helped plan the menus and went shopping for the foods they wanted. Where possible people were supported to help prepare food and also used dining as a social experience by visiting other houses within the organisation and cooking for each other. People also met up and ate in the community.

Most staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The people we spoke with had capacity to make their own decisions and there were no people who required a DoLS at the time of our inspection..

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people.

Staff received formal supervision regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People told us staff were kind and caring.

Records were held securely to protect people’s confidential information.

We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed. Plans of care contained people’s personal preferences so they could be treated as individuals.

People were given information on how to complain with the details of other organisations if they wished to go outside of the service.

People were given an opportunity to discuss how they wanted staff to support them at meetings, including how their house was run.

Staff and people who used the service all told us managers were approachable and supportive.

Meetings with staff gave them the opportunity to be involved in the running of the home and discuss their training needs.

The manager conducted sufficient audits to ensure the quality of the service provided was maintained or improved.

There were suitable activities to provide people with stimulation if they wished to join in.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 August 2017

The service was safe.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding to. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Arrangements were in place to ensure medicines were safely administered. Staff had been trained in medicines administration and managers audited the system and staff competence.

Staff were recruited robustly to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable adults.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 August 2017

The service was effective.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained in the MCA and DoLS and should recognise what a deprivation of liberty is or how they must protect people’s rights.

People were supported to eat a nutritious diet and assisted to improve their shopping and cooking skills.

Induction, training and supervision gave staff the knowledge and support they needed to satisfactorily care for the people who used the service.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 August 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service told us staff were supportive and kind.

We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service.

People were encouraged to visit their family and friends to help them remain socially active.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 August 2017

The service was responsive.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns. People told us they felt able to approach staff or managers if they had any concerns.

People were able to join in activities suitable to their age, gender and ethnicity.

Plans of care were regularly reviewed and contained sufficient details for staff to deliver their care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 August 2017

The service was well-led.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of care and service provision at this care service.

Policies, procedures and other relevant documents were reviewed regularly to help ensure staff had up to date information.

All the people and staff we spoke with told us they felt supported and could approach managers when they wished.