Archived: Overton House

Overton House is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 19 people. The home supports people with mild to moderate enduring mental health issues.

At the time of our inspection there were 14 people living at the home. There are five shared rooms and people visit the home and know if they will need to share a room before they move to the home. Overton House is a large older building with lift access to the first floor. People have shared bathrooms, a large and small lounge, dining room and a garden at the front of the building with seating. The home is situated on a main bus route and is close to local amenities.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe living at Overton House. They said the staff were kind and caring and knew their needs well. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew the correct action to take if they witnessed or suspected abuse. Staff were confident that the registered manager would act on any concerns raised.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place with guidance for staff in how people wanted to be supported. These had been regularly reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed. Some people were able to access the local community independently. Risk assessments and policies for staff to follow if the person did not return to the home at the agreed time were in place.

People we spoke with told us that the staff at Overton House were kind and caring. During the inspection we observed kind and respectful interactions between staff and people who used the service. Staff showed they had a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service and had received appropriate training in order for them to meet people’s needs. The recruitment process was robust and all required checks were in place prior to staff commencing work. Staff received regular supervisions and said they felt well supported by the registered manager.

Medicines were administered and stored safely. People received their medication as prescribed.

Systems were in place to help ensure people’s health and nutritional needs were met. Records we reviewed showed that staff contacted relevant health professionals to help ensure people received the care and treatment they required.

We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Best interest meetings and capacity assessments were held where required. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were appropriately made. Staff offered people day to day choices about their care and sought their consent before providing support.

All areas of the home were clean. Procedures were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection. Systems were in place to deal with any emergency that could affect the provision of care, such as a failure of the electricity and gas supply. Regular checks were in place of fire systems and equipment.

We saw people, their relatives and staff had been asked for feedback about the service. A complaints procedure was in place. People we spoke with said the staff and registered manager dealt with any issues they raised verbally without needing to use the formal complaints process. This was confirmed by the staff and registered manager.

We noted there were a number of quality audits in the service; these included medicines, care records and the environment. However not all audits and action plans had been fully documented. The registered manager acknowledged this and said they would document the audits in future.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Suitable policies and procedures were in place and staff understood their responsibilities under the DoLS Codes of Practice and the Mental Capacity Act. No DoLS were in force at the time of our visit.

Risks relating to care, treatment, support and the environment had been appropriately assessed and were being managed well to keep people safe from accidental harm.

Care plans provided evidence of good risk management. For example, information in records provided evidence of staff taking prompt action to prevent people from the risk of malnutrition and self-neglect.

The home's equipment had been subject to servicing and maintenance at regular intervals to ensure it was safe to use.

Suitable systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and staff knew what action to take if people in their care were at risk of abuse. A person living in the home told us, "I can talk to any of the staff or the manager if I'm worried about something."

Is the service effective?

Care plans demonstrated that people living in Overton House received person centred support which maintained their right to independent lifestyles. This meant that staff understood and respected them as individuals and provided their care and support in line with each person's choices and preferences.

Systems for dealing with complaints, suggestions and compliments made sure that the views of people using the service were responded to by making improvements where appropriate.

Is the service caring?

People living in the home were encouraged and supported to maintain their preferred lifestyles, and care and support was in line with good practice guidelines.

The people we spoke with told us staff were kind and helpful. Two people commented, 'I get on well with the staff' and 'I like living here, because the staff are very kind and it's like a family.'

Is the service responsive?

People living in the home had their needs assessed and their care plans told us how staff would provide care and support to meet their needs. Care plans also contained information about individuals' choices and preferences.

The people we spoke with during our visit made positive comments about the way the service was provided. They said they were listened to and encouraged to make suggestions for improvements.

Is the service well-led?

Robust systems were in place to monitor, audit and review the quality of the service provided in Overton House. The management team took a positive approach in responding to feedback from people who used the service. We saw evidence of the action being taken to learn from incidents and feedback and identify where improvements should be made.

The manager kept the Care Quality Commission informed about significant events in the home and prompt referrals were made to safeguarding teams when it was alleged or suspected that a person was at risk of abuse.

We visited the service with an expert by experience (ex-by-ex), these are people who have experience of receiving particular types of care and who have been trained to work with the Care Quality Commission. The ex-by-ex talked with four people who lived at Overton House. The information that people gave the ex-by-ex was at times contradictory. This was because on the one hand people said they liked the staff and felt safe. People also said that staff knew how to deal effectively with behaviour issues and arguments when they arose. Yet the ex-by-ex wrote in her feedback that the very same people said that staff shouted. This information was provided after the inspection visit. In light of this uncertainty we informed Manchester social services about the negative comments made by people who used the service.

We found that people were supported to give informed consent to their care and treatment. The assessment, care planning and review systems in place promoted people's wellbeing and safety. People at Overton House received a good variety of wholesome and well prepared meals. We saw that sufficient numbers of staff were employed. We saw that a complaints procedure was in place and people and their relatives were encouraged to comment about the quality of the service.

Although we saw systems in place for reporting and dealing with adult protection, improvements were needed in recording possible safeguarding events.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. They told us the staff assisted them when needed and did what was asked of them. They also told us they had no concerns with their medication.

The people we spoke with told us they felt there were enough staff around and that the staff were friendly and helpful. They told us that they had no concerns about the care they received and would speak to the Registered Manager if they had any concerns or complaints.