Archived: Mr Edward William Marcus - 83 Kitchener Road

Updated 18 December 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. The inspection took place on 8 October 2015. This was an unannounced inspection. The inspection team consisted of one inspector. We looked at the notifications we had received about the service since it was inspected on 22 November 2013. Edward William Marcus -83 Kitchener Road is registered to provide care for up to three people. At the time of inspection there were three people using the service. During the inspection we spoke with all three people using the service. Some people using the service communicated verbally others used signing. We met with three members of staff and interviewed two of them. We spoke with the deputy manager throughout the visit. We also spoke with the registered manager. We also spoke with two relatives who used the service. We spoke with a professional stakeholder who had recently worked in partnership with the service. We observed interactions between staff and people using the service. We reviewed two care records. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service including medicines management, staff training, quality assurance and health and safety.

Updated 18 December 2015

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 October 2015. There were no breaches of regulations at the last inspection that took place on the 22 November 2013. Edward William Marcus - 83 Kitchener Road is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care. The service is registered for up to three people who have learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. There is a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. People using the service told us they felt safe. We found the provider had systems in place to manage risks, safeguarding matters, and medicines, and this ensured peoples' safety. Training records showed staff had received recent safeguarding adults training. There was a safeguarding policy available to staff, this had been updated recently. Staff we interviewed were able to demonstrate they understood the safeguarding procedure. We found there was evidence within care planning of the identification of risks to people using the service. The stable staff team could demonstrate they were knowledgeable about the people living in the service and knew what steps to take to keep people safe.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the management had a good understanding of MCA and DoLS legislation. There was evidence of DoLS being applied for appropriately. Capacity was being assessed in people's care plans and best interest decisions were being made when people were assessed as not having capacity. Throughout our inspection we saw people being asked their consent before care actions were taken. People said staff were kind. Staff we met had worked with people for a number of years and approached people in a confident friendly manner. We noted that people shared a joke with staff and were at ease with them. We saw staff were respectful knocking at bedroom doors before they entered. We saw that each person had a person centred plan. There was evidence of review and updating. We thought the care planning responded to the diverse needs of the people using the service. Plans were detailed and personalised. The service encouraged people to undertake activities they enjoyed both individually and in a group. There was evidence of good leadership. There was regular auditing by management of staff activities such as finances and medicines to ensure the correct procedures were being adhered to. Policies from the provider were implemented by management, and policies were up to date and accessible to staff. Staff had received regular supervision, appraisal and had regular team meetings. There was evidence that staff were encouraged to voice their opinion in team meetings and supervision, this was confirmed by staff. There was evidence of staff being actively trained to take greater responsibility in their role. We felt this showed a commitment to staff development that would have a good outcome for people in terms of the standard of care provided in the service.