The Care Quality Commission

Archived: St Michael's House

Hewitt Street, Chell, Stoke On Trent, Staffordshire, ST6 6JX (01782) 233435

Provided and run by:
Stoke-on-Trent City Council

All Inspections

6 March 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection St Michael's House provided people with short periods of rehabilitation. People usually stayed at St Michael's House for up to four weeks. During our inspection we spoke with eight people who used the service, four members of staff and the registered manager.

We saw that people's consent was gained prior to the provision of any care and treatment and people told us that they felt involved in the planning of their treatment.

We saw that care was provided by skilled staff and treatment focussed on increasing people's independence. One person we spoke with told us, 'Staff help us if we need it, but they encourage us to do things for ourselves so we can go back home'. Another person told us, 'It's wonderful here, there's no other place like it'.

We saw that people's needs were met by the staff, but the support people required was not always recorded for staff to refer to. This meant there was a risk that staff may not have provided people's care and treatment in a consistent manner.

People told us that they received their medicines as prescribed, but we found some inconsistencies in medication recording. The formal monitoring of medicine administration and recording was not being completed so inconsistencies were not being identified by the manager. This meant that the manager could not confirm that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.

We found that there was an effective system in place to respond to complaints.

12 September 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the last inspection of St Michael's House we found that people didn't feel involved in making the decision to move into the home, and felt that they didn't have enough information about what to expect from the service or about the support they would receive. They also said that they didn't feel involved in the decisions about their progress and plans for the future.

At the last inspection we were told that staff tried to visit each prospective user of the service prior to admission to undertake an assessment and to ensure that they were fully informed about the service. However there had been on occasions they were not able to, or had used information and assessments from other social care professionals. This meant that they could not always be confident that people had received the information needed about the service, that would help them to decide if it was suitable.

Prior to this visit we spoke with other people who had an interest in the service such as local network services (LINks), social care and health care professionals. No concerns were raised by any of these agencies.

During our visit of 12 September 2012, we spoke to the manager of the service, looked at relevant records, observed interaction and practice and spoke with eight people who used the service. Without exception we received positive comments about the service and support provided.

7 October 2011

During a routine inspection

We visited this service and were accompanied by an expert by experience for some of the time we were there. An expert by experience is a person who has used services or has experience of caring for some one who has. Because of their experience we take their findings into account when making judgements about how well the service meets the essential standards of quality and safety. The expert we used during this review was provided by Age UK.

People told us that staff were attentive, approachable and provided good support. A relative said, 'Excellent, particularly the staff, they are almost like family friends'.

'I can't speak highly enough of the staff'.

The stated purpose and aims of the service were to provide rehabilitation to people, usually following discharge from hospital and for a time limited period, generally up to six weeks. However there were also a small number of permanent people using the service. We were concerned that their needs may not be appropriately met. But people told us they were happy with the support and care they received.

People couldn't confirm they were routinely involved in decision making about their day to day care needs, or about the service. No one we spoke with knew about their care plans and did not have access to them.

We confirmed that staff were provided in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs and that training records showed that staff received the training they needed.